[PATCH 0/2] Fix per-policy boost behavior

Sibi Sankar quic_sibis at quicinc.com
Wed Feb 28 02:09:34 PST 2024



On 2/28/24 12:05, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 28-02-24, 10:44, Sibi Sankar wrote:
>> In the existing code, per-policy flags doesn't have any impact i.e.
>> if cpufreq_driver boost is enabled and one or more of the per-policy
>> boost is disabled, the cpufreq driver will behave as if boost is
>> enabled.
> 
> I see. Good catch. The first patch is fine, just explain the problem
> properly and mention that no one is checking the policy->boost_enabled
> field. It is never read.
> 
>> I had to update the policy->boost_enabled value because we seem
>> to allow enabling cpufreq_driver.boost_enabled from the driver, but I
>> can drop that because it was just for book keeping.
> 
> So with cpufreq_driver->boost_enabled at init time, policy's
> boost_enabled must be set too. Do that in the core during
> initialization of the policy instead.
> 
>> I didn't want
>> to include redundant info from another mail thread that I referenced in
>> the cover letter, but will add more info in the re-spin.
> 
> You don't have to, but you need to explain the exact problem in a bit
> more detail since it wasn't obvious here.

ack, will make these changes in the next re-spin.

-Sibi

> 



More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list