Re: [PATCH V3 8/9] cpufreq: Keep policy->freq_table sorted in ascending order

On 08-06-16, 02:38, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

On Tuesday, June 07, 2016 09:58:07 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:

quoted

On 06-06-16, 23:56, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

quoted

Since you are adding new code, you can write it so it doesn't do
unnecessary checks from the start.

Hmm, I will do all that in this series only now.

quoted

While at it, the "if ((freq < policy->min) || (freq > policy->max))"
checks in cpufreq_find_index_l() and cpufreq_find_index_h() don't look
good to me, because they very well may cause those function to return
-EINVAL even when there's a valid table and that may cause
acpi_cpufreq_fast_switch() to do bad things.

Hmm. So, the checks are for sure required here, otherwise we may end up
returning a frequency which we aren't allowed to. Also note that 'freq' here
isn't the target-freq, but the entry in the freq-table.

This routine should be returning a valid freq within the ranges specified by
policy->min/max.

Which in principle may not be possible if the range doesn't include any
frequency in the table, eg. min == max and between the table entries.

By within ranges I meant, policy->min <= freq <= policy->max, and that's how all
our checks are. So even if the table will have a single valid frequency, we will
return that only.

However, the CPU has to run at *some* frequency, even if there's none in the
min/max range.

I completely agree. But the error will be fired only if there is no frequency
within ranges we can switch to. And that's a bug somewhere else then.

And if we are sure that there is at least one valid frequency between min
and max, please note that target_freq has already been clamped between them,

Yeah, its already clamped by the freq-change helpers in cpufreq core, but others
may not be doing it properly.

quoted

Also note that these routines shall *never* return -EINVAL, otherwise it is
mostly a bug we are hitting.

So make them explicitly return a valid frequency every time.

I thought about return Index 0 on such errors, will that be fine ? Anyway the
new patches have added a WARN() for such cases.

quoted

We have enough checks in place to make sure that there is at least one valid
entry in the freq-table which is >= policy->min and <= policy->max.

That assuming that the driver will always do the right thing in its ->verify
callback.

Yeah.

-- 
viresh