cpufreq: move freq change notifications to cpufreq core
Most of the drivers do following in their ->target_index() routines:
struct cpufreq_freqs freqs;
freqs.old = old freq...
freqs.new = new freq...
cpufreq_notify_transition(policy, &freqs, CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE);
/* Change rate here */
cpufreq_notify_transition(policy, &freqs, CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE);
This is replicated over all cpufreq drivers today and there doesn't exists a
good enough reason why this shouldn't be moved to cpufreq core instead.
There are few special cases though, like exynos5440, which doesn't do everything
on the call to ->target_index() routine and call some kind of bottom halves for
doing this work, work/tasklet/etc..
They may continue doing notification from their own code as flag:
CPUFREQ_ASYNC_NOTIFICATION is already set for them.
All drivers are also modified in this patch to avoid breaking 'git bisect', as
double notification would happen otherwise.
Acked-by: Hans-Christian Egtvedt <egtvedt@samfundet.no>
Acked-by: Jesper Nilsson <jesper.nilsson@axis.com>
Acked-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Acked-by: Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
Acked-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>
Tested-by: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
Tested-by: Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/pxa2xx-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/pxa2xx-cpufreq.c
index 183bc13..0a0f436 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/pxa2xx-cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/pxa2xx-cpufreq.c
@@ -271,7 +271,6 @@
{
struct cpufreq_frequency_table *pxa_freqs_table;
pxa_freqs_t *pxa_freq_settings;
- struct cpufreq_freqs freqs;
unsigned long flags;
unsigned int new_freq_cpu, new_freq_mem;
unsigned int unused, preset_mdrefr, postset_mdrefr, cclkcfg;
@@ -282,24 +281,17 @@
new_freq_cpu = pxa_freq_settings[idx].khz;
new_freq_mem = pxa_freq_settings[idx].membus;
- freqs.old = policy->cur;
- freqs.new = new_freq_cpu;
if (freq_debug)
pr_debug("Changing CPU frequency to %d Mhz, (SDRAM %d Mhz)\n",
- freqs.new / 1000, (pxa_freq_settings[idx].div2) ?
+ new_freq_cpu / 1000, (pxa_freq_settings[idx].div2) ?
(new_freq_mem / 2000) : (new_freq_mem / 1000));
- if (vcc_core && freqs.new > freqs.old)
+ if (vcc_core && new_freq_cpu > policy->cur) {
ret = pxa_cpufreq_change_voltage(&pxa_freq_settings[idx]);
- if (ret)
- return ret;
- /*
- * Tell everyone what we're about to do...
- * you should add a notify client with any platform specific
- * Vcc changing capability
- */
- cpufreq_notify_transition(policy, &freqs, CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE);
+ if (ret)
+ return ret;
+ }
/* Calculate the next MDREFR. If we're slowing down the SDRAM clock
* we need to preset the smaller DRI before the change. If we're
@@ -350,13 +342,6 @@
local_irq_restore(flags);
/*
- * Tell everyone what we've just done...
- * you should add a notify client with any platform specific
- * SDRAM refresh timer adjustments
- */
- cpufreq_notify_transition(policy, &freqs, CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE);
-
- /*
* Even if voltage setting fails, we don't report it, as the frequency
* change succeeded. The voltage reduction is not a critical failure,
* only power savings will suffer from this.
@@ -365,7 +350,7 @@
* bug is triggered (seems a deadlock). Should anybody find out where,
* the "return 0" should become a "return ret".
*/
- if (vcc_core && freqs.new < freqs.old)
+ if (vcc_core && new_freq_cpu < policy->cur)
ret = pxa_cpufreq_change_voltage(&pxa_freq_settings[idx]);
return 0;