| Message ID | cover.1571314830.git.amit.kucheria@linaro.org |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | Initialise thermal framework and cpufreq earlier during boot | expand |
On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 12:41 AM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 2:28 PM Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > Initialise the cpufreq governors earlier to allow for earlier > > performance control during the boot process. > > > > Signed-off-by: Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@linaro.org> > > Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> > > You also want to do that for the schedutil governor I think. Indeed. Thanks for the review. I'll respin. > > > --- > > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c | 2 +- > > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c | 2 +- > > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_performance.c | 2 +- > > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_powersave.c | 2 +- > > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_userspace.c | 2 +- > > 5 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c > > index b66e81c06a57..737ff3b9c2c0 100644 > > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c > > @@ -346,7 +346,7 @@ struct cpufreq_governor *cpufreq_default_governor(void) > > return CPU_FREQ_GOV_CONSERVATIVE; > > } > > > > -fs_initcall(cpufreq_gov_dbs_init); > > +core_initcall(cpufreq_gov_dbs_init); > > #else > > module_init(cpufreq_gov_dbs_init); > > #endif > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c > > index dced033875bf..82a4d37ddecb 100644 > > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c > > @@ -483,7 +483,7 @@ struct cpufreq_governor *cpufreq_default_governor(void) > > return CPU_FREQ_GOV_ONDEMAND; > > } > > > > -fs_initcall(cpufreq_gov_dbs_init); > > +core_initcall(cpufreq_gov_dbs_init); > > #else > > module_init(cpufreq_gov_dbs_init); > > #endif > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_performance.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_performance.c > > index aaa04dfcacd9..def9afe0f5b8 100644 > > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_performance.c > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_performance.c > > @@ -50,5 +50,5 @@ MODULE_AUTHOR("Dominik Brodowski <linux@brodo.de>"); > > MODULE_DESCRIPTION("CPUfreq policy governor 'performance'"); > > MODULE_LICENSE("GPL"); > > > > -fs_initcall(cpufreq_gov_performance_init); > > +core_initcall(cpufreq_gov_performance_init); > > module_exit(cpufreq_gov_performance_exit); > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_powersave.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_powersave.c > > index c143dc237d87..1ae66019eb83 100644 > > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_powersave.c > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_powersave.c > > @@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ struct cpufreq_governor *cpufreq_default_governor(void) > > return &cpufreq_gov_powersave; > > } > > > > -fs_initcall(cpufreq_gov_powersave_init); > > +core_initcall(cpufreq_gov_powersave_init); > > #else > > module_init(cpufreq_gov_powersave_init); > > #endif > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_userspace.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_userspace.c > > index cbd81c58cb8f..b43e7cd502c5 100644 > > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_userspace.c > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_userspace.c > > @@ -147,7 +147,7 @@ struct cpufreq_governor *cpufreq_default_governor(void) > > return &cpufreq_gov_userspace; > > } > > > > -fs_initcall(cpufreq_gov_userspace_init); > > +core_initcall(cpufreq_gov_userspace_init); > > #else > > module_init(cpufreq_gov_userspace_init); > > #endif > > -- > > 2.17.1 > >
On 17-10-19, 10:47, Stephen Boyd wrote: > Quoting Amit Kucheria (2019-10-17 05:27:37) > > Initialise the clock drivers on sdm845 and qcs404 in core_initcall so we > > can have earlier access to cpufreq during booting. > > > > Signed-off-by: Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@linaro.org> > > --- > > Acked-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org> > > Makes me sad again. I am wondering why it makes you sad ? :) -- viresh
On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 10:22:24AM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote: > Quoting Viresh Kumar (2019-10-17 23:03:45) > > On 17-10-19, 10:47, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > > Quoting Amit Kucheria (2019-10-17 05:27:37) > > > > Initialise the clock drivers on sdm845 and qcs404 in core_initcall so we > > > > can have earlier access to cpufreq during booting. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@linaro.org> > > > > --- > > > > > > Acked-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org> > > > > > > Makes me sad again. > > > > I am wondering why it makes you sad ? :) > > > > We're playing games with initcall levels :( > +1, which will come back and bite us hard soon :) -- Regards, Sudeep
On 29-10-19, 09:06, Sudeep Holla wrote: > On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 10:22:24AM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > Quoting Viresh Kumar (2019-10-17 23:03:45) > > > On 17-10-19, 10:47, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > > > Quoting Amit Kucheria (2019-10-17 05:27:37) > > > > > Initialise the clock drivers on sdm845 and qcs404 in core_initcall so we > > > > > can have earlier access to cpufreq during booting. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@linaro.org> > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > Acked-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org> > > > > > > > > Makes me sad again. > > > > > > I am wondering why it makes you sad ? :) > > > > > > > We're playing games with initcall levels :( > > > > +1, which will come back and bite us hard soon :) :) I don't like reordering init calls as well, but only when they are used to avoid issues and probe things in a particular order. While the only thing we are doing here is to get things to probe earlier, which isn't wrong IMO :) Lets see if it bites us anytime soon, I would be surprised really :) -- viresh