Hello Hongyan,
On 9/9/2026 9:39 AM, Hongyan Xia wrote:
quoted
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
index b898b6544069..97f4a3ba5107 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
@@ -2586,8 +2586,11 @@ static void cpufreq_update_pressure(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
cpu = cpumask_first(policy->related_cpus);
max_freq = arch_scale_freq_ref(cpu);
- if (!max_freq)
- max_freq = policy->cpuinfo.max_freq;
+ if (!max_freq) {
+ max_freq = __resolve_freq(policy, policy->cpuinfo.max_freq,
+ policy->cpuinfo.min_freq, policy->cpuinfo.max_freq,
+ CPUFREQ_RELATION_H);
+ }
capped_freq = policy->max;
LGTM.
Thanks a ton for taking a look at the suggestion.
NIT: I do wonder if we need a full __resolve_freq() each time. We could
cache the highest achievable OPP on max_freq updates, but that's future
optimization.
Sure! We can cache it in the policy object during
cpufreq_policy_online().
Jianyong Wu would like to take a stab at it? If not, I can send it out
early next week.
--
Thanks and Regards,
Prateek
Disclaimer: Hygon emails are routed differently in our organization.
Response might be slightly delayed until my NNTP rule finds the email.
Sorry for any inconvenience.