[PATCH V3 2/2] cpufreq: scmi: Register for limit change notifications

[Lukasz Luba]

On 2/29/24 09:59, Lukasz Luba wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2/28/24 17:00, Sibi Sankar wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2/28/24 18:54, Lukasz Luba wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/27/24 18:16, Sibi Sankar wrote:
>>>> Register for limit change notifications if supported and use the 
>>>> throttled
>>>> frequency from the notification to apply HW pressure.
>>
>> Lukasz,
>>
>> Thanks for taking time to review the series!
>>
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Sibi Sankar <quic_sibis at quicinc.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> v3:
>>>> * Sanitize range_max received from the notifier. [Pierre]
>>>> * Update commit message.
>>>>
>>>>   drivers/cpufreq/scmi-cpufreq.c | 29 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>>>   1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/scmi-cpufreq.c 
>>>> b/drivers/cpufreq/scmi-cpufreq.c
>>>> index 76a0ddbd9d24..78b87b72962d 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/scmi-cpufreq.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/scmi-cpufreq.c
>>>> @@ -25,9 +25,13 @@ struct scmi_data {
>>>>       int domain_id;
>>>>       int nr_opp;
>>>>       struct device *cpu_dev;
>>>> +    struct cpufreq_policy *policy;
>>>>       cpumask_var_t opp_shared_cpus;
>>>> +    struct notifier_block limit_notify_nb;
>>>>   };
>>>> +const struct scmi_handle *handle;
> 
> I've missed this bit here.

So for this change we actually have to ask Cristian or Sudeep
because I'm not sure if we have only one 'handle' instance
for all cpufreq devices.

If we have different 'handle' we cannot move it to the
global single pointer.

Sudeep, Cristian what do you think?