| /openbmc/linux/drivers/cpufreq/ |
| H A D | tegra194-cpufreq.c | 5ae4a4b4 Mon Feb 01 22:55:11 CST 2021 Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> cpufreq: Remove CPUFREQ_STICKY flag
During cpufreq driver's registration, if the ->init() callback for all
the CPUs fail then there is not much point in keeping the driver around
as it will only account for more of unnecessary noise, for example
cpufreq core will try to suspend/resume the driver which never got
registered properly.
The removal of such a driver is avoided if the driver carries the
CPUFREQ_STICKY flag. This was added way back [1] in 2004 and perhaps no
one should ever need it now. A lot of drivers do set this flag, probably
because they just copied it from other drivers.
This was added earlier for some platforms [2] because their cpufreq
drivers were getting registered before the CPUs were registered with
subsys framework. And hence they used to fail.
The same isn't true anymore though. The current code flow in the kernel
is:
start_kernel()
-> kernel_init()
-> kernel_init_freeable()
-> do_basic_setup()
-> driver_init()
-> cpu_dev_init()
-> subsys_system_register() //For CPUs
-> do_initcalls()
-> cpufreq_register_driver()
Clearly, the CPUs will always get registered with subsys framework
before any cpufreq driver can get probed. Remove the flag and update the
relevant drivers.
Link: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tglx/history.git/commit/include/linux/cpufreq.h?id=7cc9f0d9a1ab04cedc60d64fd8dcf7df224a3b4d # [1]
Link: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tglx/history.git/commit/arch/arm/mach-sa1100/cpu-sa1100.c?id=f59d3bbe35f6268d729f51be82af8325d62f20f5 # [2]
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
|
| H A D | tegra186-cpufreq.c | 5ae4a4b4 Mon Feb 01 22:55:11 CST 2021 Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> cpufreq: Remove CPUFREQ_STICKY flag
During cpufreq driver's registration, if the ->init() callback for all
the CPUs fail then there is not much point in keeping the driver around
as it will only account for more of unnecessary noise, for example
cpufreq core will try to suspend/resume the driver which never got
registered properly.
The removal of such a driver is avoided if the driver carries the
CPUFREQ_STICKY flag. This was added way back [1] in 2004 and perhaps no
one should ever need it now. A lot of drivers do set this flag, probably
because they just copied it from other drivers.
This was added earlier for some platforms [2] because their cpufreq
drivers were getting registered before the CPUs were registered with
subsys framework. And hence they used to fail.
The same isn't true anymore though. The current code flow in the kernel
is:
start_kernel()
-> kernel_init()
-> kernel_init_freeable()
-> do_basic_setup()
-> driver_init()
-> cpu_dev_init()
-> subsys_system_register() //For CPUs
-> do_initcalls()
-> cpufreq_register_driver()
Clearly, the CPUs will always get registered with subsys framework
before any cpufreq driver can get probed. Remove the flag and update the
relevant drivers.
Link: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tglx/history.git/commit/include/linux/cpufreq.h?id=7cc9f0d9a1ab04cedc60d64fd8dcf7df224a3b4d # [1]
Link: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tglx/history.git/commit/arch/arm/mach-sa1100/cpu-sa1100.c?id=f59d3bbe35f6268d729f51be82af8325d62f20f5 # [2]
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
|
| H A D | sa1110-cpufreq.c | 5ae4a4b4 Mon Feb 01 22:55:11 CST 2021 Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> cpufreq: Remove CPUFREQ_STICKY flag
During cpufreq driver's registration, if the ->init() callback for all
the CPUs fail then there is not much point in keeping the driver around
as it will only account for more of unnecessary noise, for example
cpufreq core will try to suspend/resume the driver which never got
registered properly.
The removal of such a driver is avoided if the driver carries the
CPUFREQ_STICKY flag. This was added way back [1] in 2004 and perhaps no
one should ever need it now. A lot of drivers do set this flag, probably
because they just copied it from other drivers.
This was added earlier for some platforms [2] because their cpufreq
drivers were getting registered before the CPUs were registered with
subsys framework. And hence they used to fail.
The same isn't true anymore though. The current code flow in the kernel
is:
start_kernel()
-> kernel_init()
-> kernel_init_freeable()
-> do_basic_setup()
-> driver_init()
-> cpu_dev_init()
-> subsys_system_register() //For CPUs
-> do_initcalls()
-> cpufreq_register_driver()
Clearly, the CPUs will always get registered with subsys framework
before any cpufreq driver can get probed. Remove the flag and update the
relevant drivers.
Link: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tglx/history.git/commit/include/linux/cpufreq.h?id=7cc9f0d9a1ab04cedc60d64fd8dcf7df224a3b4d # [1]
Link: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tglx/history.git/commit/arch/arm/mach-sa1100/cpu-sa1100.c?id=f59d3bbe35f6268d729f51be82af8325d62f20f5 # [2]
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
|
| H A D | vexpress-spc-cpufreq.c | 5ae4a4b4 Mon Feb 01 22:55:11 CST 2021 Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> cpufreq: Remove CPUFREQ_STICKY flag
During cpufreq driver's registration, if the ->init() callback for all
the CPUs fail then there is not much point in keeping the driver around
as it will only account for more of unnecessary noise, for example
cpufreq core will try to suspend/resume the driver which never got
registered properly.
The removal of such a driver is avoided if the driver carries the
CPUFREQ_STICKY flag. This was added way back [1] in 2004 and perhaps no
one should ever need it now. A lot of drivers do set this flag, probably
because they just copied it from other drivers.
This was added earlier for some platforms [2] because their cpufreq
drivers were getting registered before the CPUs were registered with
subsys framework. And hence they used to fail.
The same isn't true anymore though. The current code flow in the kernel
is:
start_kernel()
-> kernel_init()
-> kernel_init_freeable()
-> do_basic_setup()
-> driver_init()
-> cpu_dev_init()
-> subsys_system_register() //For CPUs
-> do_initcalls()
-> cpufreq_register_driver()
Clearly, the CPUs will always get registered with subsys framework
before any cpufreq driver can get probed. Remove the flag and update the
relevant drivers.
Link: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tglx/history.git/commit/include/linux/cpufreq.h?id=7cc9f0d9a1ab04cedc60d64fd8dcf7df224a3b4d # [1]
Link: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tglx/history.git/commit/arch/arm/mach-sa1100/cpu-sa1100.c?id=f59d3bbe35f6268d729f51be82af8325d62f20f5 # [2]
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
|
| H A D | davinci-cpufreq.c | 5ae4a4b4 Mon Feb 01 22:55:11 CST 2021 Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> cpufreq: Remove CPUFREQ_STICKY flag
During cpufreq driver's registration, if the ->init() callback for all
the CPUs fail then there is not much point in keeping the driver around
as it will only account for more of unnecessary noise, for example
cpufreq core will try to suspend/resume the driver which never got
registered properly.
The removal of such a driver is avoided if the driver carries the
CPUFREQ_STICKY flag. This was added way back [1] in 2004 and perhaps no
one should ever need it now. A lot of drivers do set this flag, probably
because they just copied it from other drivers.
This was added earlier for some platforms [2] because their cpufreq
drivers were getting registered before the CPUs were registered with
subsys framework. And hence they used to fail.
The same isn't true anymore though. The current code flow in the kernel
is:
start_kernel()
-> kernel_init()
-> kernel_init_freeable()
-> do_basic_setup()
-> driver_init()
-> cpu_dev_init()
-> subsys_system_register() //For CPUs
-> do_initcalls()
-> cpufreq_register_driver()
Clearly, the CPUs will always get registered with subsys framework
before any cpufreq driver can get probed. Remove the flag and update the
relevant drivers.
Link: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tglx/history.git/commit/include/linux/cpufreq.h?id=7cc9f0d9a1ab04cedc60d64fd8dcf7df224a3b4d # [1]
Link: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tglx/history.git/commit/arch/arm/mach-sa1100/cpu-sa1100.c?id=f59d3bbe35f6268d729f51be82af8325d62f20f5 # [2]
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
|
| H A D | scpi-cpufreq.c | 5ae4a4b4 Mon Feb 01 22:55:11 CST 2021 Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> cpufreq: Remove CPUFREQ_STICKY flag
During cpufreq driver's registration, if the ->init() callback for all
the CPUs fail then there is not much point in keeping the driver around
as it will only account for more of unnecessary noise, for example
cpufreq core will try to suspend/resume the driver which never got
registered properly.
The removal of such a driver is avoided if the driver carries the
CPUFREQ_STICKY flag. This was added way back [1] in 2004 and perhaps no
one should ever need it now. A lot of drivers do set this flag, probably
because they just copied it from other drivers.
This was added earlier for some platforms [2] because their cpufreq
drivers were getting registered before the CPUs were registered with
subsys framework. And hence they used to fail.
The same isn't true anymore though. The current code flow in the kernel
is:
start_kernel()
-> kernel_init()
-> kernel_init_freeable()
-> do_basic_setup()
-> driver_init()
-> cpu_dev_init()
-> subsys_system_register() //For CPUs
-> do_initcalls()
-> cpufreq_register_driver()
Clearly, the CPUs will always get registered with subsys framework
before any cpufreq driver can get probed. Remove the flag and update the
relevant drivers.
Link: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tglx/history.git/commit/include/linux/cpufreq.h?id=7cc9f0d9a1ab04cedc60d64fd8dcf7df224a3b4d # [1]
Link: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tglx/history.git/commit/arch/arm/mach-sa1100/cpu-sa1100.c?id=f59d3bbe35f6268d729f51be82af8325d62f20f5 # [2]
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
|
| H A D | mediatek-cpufreq.c | 5ae4a4b4 Mon Feb 01 22:55:11 CST 2021 Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> cpufreq: Remove CPUFREQ_STICKY flag
During cpufreq driver's registration, if the ->init() callback for all
the CPUs fail then there is not much point in keeping the driver around
as it will only account for more of unnecessary noise, for example
cpufreq core will try to suspend/resume the driver which never got
registered properly.
The removal of such a driver is avoided if the driver carries the
CPUFREQ_STICKY flag. This was added way back [1] in 2004 and perhaps no
one should ever need it now. A lot of drivers do set this flag, probably
because they just copied it from other drivers.
This was added earlier for some platforms [2] because their cpufreq
drivers were getting registered before the CPUs were registered with
subsys framework. And hence they used to fail.
The same isn't true anymore though. The current code flow in the kernel
is:
start_kernel()
-> kernel_init()
-> kernel_init_freeable()
-> do_basic_setup()
-> driver_init()
-> cpu_dev_init()
-> subsys_system_register() //For CPUs
-> do_initcalls()
-> cpufreq_register_driver()
Clearly, the CPUs will always get registered with subsys framework
before any cpufreq driver can get probed. Remove the flag and update the
relevant drivers.
Link: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tglx/history.git/commit/include/linux/cpufreq.h?id=7cc9f0d9a1ab04cedc60d64fd8dcf7df224a3b4d # [1]
Link: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tglx/history.git/commit/arch/arm/mach-sa1100/cpu-sa1100.c?id=f59d3bbe35f6268d729f51be82af8325d62f20f5 # [2]
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
|
| H A D | scmi-cpufreq.c | 5ae4a4b4 Mon Feb 01 22:55:11 CST 2021 Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> cpufreq: Remove CPUFREQ_STICKY flag
During cpufreq driver's registration, if the ->init() callback for all
the CPUs fail then there is not much point in keeping the driver around
as it will only account for more of unnecessary noise, for example
cpufreq core will try to suspend/resume the driver which never got
registered properly.
The removal of such a driver is avoided if the driver carries the
CPUFREQ_STICKY flag. This was added way back [1] in 2004 and perhaps no
one should ever need it now. A lot of drivers do set this flag, probably
because they just copied it from other drivers.
This was added earlier for some platforms [2] because their cpufreq
drivers were getting registered before the CPUs were registered with
subsys framework. And hence they used to fail.
The same isn't true anymore though. The current code flow in the kernel
is:
start_kernel()
-> kernel_init()
-> kernel_init_freeable()
-> do_basic_setup()
-> driver_init()
-> cpu_dev_init()
-> subsys_system_register() //For CPUs
-> do_initcalls()
-> cpufreq_register_driver()
Clearly, the CPUs will always get registered with subsys framework
before any cpufreq driver can get probed. Remove the flag and update the
relevant drivers.
Link: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tglx/history.git/commit/include/linux/cpufreq.h?id=7cc9f0d9a1ab04cedc60d64fd8dcf7df224a3b4d # [1]
Link: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tglx/history.git/commit/arch/arm/mach-sa1100/cpu-sa1100.c?id=f59d3bbe35f6268d729f51be82af8325d62f20f5 # [2]
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
|
| H A D | spear-cpufreq.c | 5ae4a4b4 Mon Feb 01 22:55:11 CST 2021 Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> cpufreq: Remove CPUFREQ_STICKY flag
During cpufreq driver's registration, if the ->init() callback for all
the CPUs fail then there is not much point in keeping the driver around
as it will only account for more of unnecessary noise, for example
cpufreq core will try to suspend/resume the driver which never got
registered properly.
The removal of such a driver is avoided if the driver carries the
CPUFREQ_STICKY flag. This was added way back [1] in 2004 and perhaps no
one should ever need it now. A lot of drivers do set this flag, probably
because they just copied it from other drivers.
This was added earlier for some platforms [2] because their cpufreq
drivers were getting registered before the CPUs were registered with
subsys framework. And hence they used to fail.
The same isn't true anymore though. The current code flow in the kernel
is:
start_kernel()
-> kernel_init()
-> kernel_init_freeable()
-> do_basic_setup()
-> driver_init()
-> cpu_dev_init()
-> subsys_system_register() //For CPUs
-> do_initcalls()
-> cpufreq_register_driver()
Clearly, the CPUs will always get registered with subsys framework
before any cpufreq driver can get probed. Remove the flag and update the
relevant drivers.
Link: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tglx/history.git/commit/include/linux/cpufreq.h?id=7cc9f0d9a1ab04cedc60d64fd8dcf7df224a3b4d # [1]
Link: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tglx/history.git/commit/arch/arm/mach-sa1100/cpu-sa1100.c?id=f59d3bbe35f6268d729f51be82af8325d62f20f5 # [2]
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
|
| H A D | s5pv210-cpufreq.c | 5ae4a4b4 Mon Feb 01 22:55:11 CST 2021 Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> cpufreq: Remove CPUFREQ_STICKY flag
During cpufreq driver's registration, if the ->init() callback for all
the CPUs fail then there is not much point in keeping the driver around
as it will only account for more of unnecessary noise, for example
cpufreq core will try to suspend/resume the driver which never got
registered properly.
The removal of such a driver is avoided if the driver carries the
CPUFREQ_STICKY flag. This was added way back [1] in 2004 and perhaps no
one should ever need it now. A lot of drivers do set this flag, probably
because they just copied it from other drivers.
This was added earlier for some platforms [2] because their cpufreq
drivers were getting registered before the CPUs were registered with
subsys framework. And hence they used to fail.
The same isn't true anymore though. The current code flow in the kernel
is:
start_kernel()
-> kernel_init()
-> kernel_init_freeable()
-> do_basic_setup()
-> driver_init()
-> cpu_dev_init()
-> subsys_system_register() //For CPUs
-> do_initcalls()
-> cpufreq_register_driver()
Clearly, the CPUs will always get registered with subsys framework
before any cpufreq driver can get probed. Remove the flag and update the
relevant drivers.
Link: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tglx/history.git/commit/include/linux/cpufreq.h?id=7cc9f0d9a1ab04cedc60d64fd8dcf7df224a3b4d # [1]
Link: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tglx/history.git/commit/arch/arm/mach-sa1100/cpu-sa1100.c?id=f59d3bbe35f6268d729f51be82af8325d62f20f5 # [2]
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
|
| H A D | omap-cpufreq.c | 5ae4a4b4 Mon Feb 01 22:55:11 CST 2021 Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> cpufreq: Remove CPUFREQ_STICKY flag
During cpufreq driver's registration, if the ->init() callback for all
the CPUs fail then there is not much point in keeping the driver around
as it will only account for more of unnecessary noise, for example
cpufreq core will try to suspend/resume the driver which never got
registered properly.
The removal of such a driver is avoided if the driver carries the
CPUFREQ_STICKY flag. This was added way back [1] in 2004 and perhaps no
one should ever need it now. A lot of drivers do set this flag, probably
because they just copied it from other drivers.
This was added earlier for some platforms [2] because their cpufreq
drivers were getting registered before the CPUs were registered with
subsys framework. And hence they used to fail.
The same isn't true anymore though. The current code flow in the kernel
is:
start_kernel()
-> kernel_init()
-> kernel_init_freeable()
-> do_basic_setup()
-> driver_init()
-> cpu_dev_init()
-> subsys_system_register() //For CPUs
-> do_initcalls()
-> cpufreq_register_driver()
Clearly, the CPUs will always get registered with subsys framework
before any cpufreq driver can get probed. Remove the flag and update the
relevant drivers.
Link: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tglx/history.git/commit/include/linux/cpufreq.h?id=7cc9f0d9a1ab04cedc60d64fd8dcf7df224a3b4d # [1]
Link: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tglx/history.git/commit/arch/arm/mach-sa1100/cpu-sa1100.c?id=f59d3bbe35f6268d729f51be82af8325d62f20f5 # [2]
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
|
| H A D | qcom-cpufreq-hw.c | 5ae4a4b4 Mon Feb 01 22:55:11 CST 2021 Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> cpufreq: Remove CPUFREQ_STICKY flag
During cpufreq driver's registration, if the ->init() callback for all
the CPUs fail then there is not much point in keeping the driver around
as it will only account for more of unnecessary noise, for example
cpufreq core will try to suspend/resume the driver which never got
registered properly.
The removal of such a driver is avoided if the driver carries the
CPUFREQ_STICKY flag. This was added way back [1] in 2004 and perhaps no
one should ever need it now. A lot of drivers do set this flag, probably
because they just copied it from other drivers.
This was added earlier for some platforms [2] because their cpufreq
drivers were getting registered before the CPUs were registered with
subsys framework. And hence they used to fail.
The same isn't true anymore though. The current code flow in the kernel
is:
start_kernel()
-> kernel_init()
-> kernel_init_freeable()
-> do_basic_setup()
-> driver_init()
-> cpu_dev_init()
-> subsys_system_register() //For CPUs
-> do_initcalls()
-> cpufreq_register_driver()
Clearly, the CPUs will always get registered with subsys framework
before any cpufreq driver can get probed. Remove the flag and update the
relevant drivers.
Link: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tglx/history.git/commit/include/linux/cpufreq.h?id=7cc9f0d9a1ab04cedc60d64fd8dcf7df224a3b4d # [1]
Link: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tglx/history.git/commit/arch/arm/mach-sa1100/cpu-sa1100.c?id=f59d3bbe35f6268d729f51be82af8325d62f20f5 # [2]
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
|
| H A D | cpufreq-dt.c | 5ae4a4b4 Mon Feb 01 22:55:11 CST 2021 Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> cpufreq: Remove CPUFREQ_STICKY flag
During cpufreq driver's registration, if the ->init() callback for all
the CPUs fail then there is not much point in keeping the driver around
as it will only account for more of unnecessary noise, for example
cpufreq core will try to suspend/resume the driver which never got
registered properly.
The removal of such a driver is avoided if the driver carries the
CPUFREQ_STICKY flag. This was added way back [1] in 2004 and perhaps no
one should ever need it now. A lot of drivers do set this flag, probably
because they just copied it from other drivers.
This was added earlier for some platforms [2] because their cpufreq
drivers were getting registered before the CPUs were registered with
subsys framework. And hence they used to fail.
The same isn't true anymore though. The current code flow in the kernel
is:
start_kernel()
-> kernel_init()
-> kernel_init_freeable()
-> do_basic_setup()
-> driver_init()
-> cpu_dev_init()
-> subsys_system_register() //For CPUs
-> do_initcalls()
-> cpufreq_register_driver()
Clearly, the CPUs will always get registered with subsys framework
before any cpufreq driver can get probed. Remove the flag and update the
relevant drivers.
Link: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tglx/history.git/commit/include/linux/cpufreq.h?id=7cc9f0d9a1ab04cedc60d64fd8dcf7df224a3b4d # [1]
Link: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tglx/history.git/commit/arch/arm/mach-sa1100/cpu-sa1100.c?id=f59d3bbe35f6268d729f51be82af8325d62f20f5 # [2]
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
|
| H A D | cpufreq.c | 5ae4a4b4 Mon Feb 01 22:55:11 CST 2021 Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> cpufreq: Remove CPUFREQ_STICKY flag
During cpufreq driver's registration, if the ->init() callback for all
the CPUs fail then there is not much point in keeping the driver around
as it will only account for more of unnecessary noise, for example
cpufreq core will try to suspend/resume the driver which never got
registered properly.
The removal of such a driver is avoided if the driver carries the
CPUFREQ_STICKY flag. This was added way back [1] in 2004 and perhaps no
one should ever need it now. A lot of drivers do set this flag, probably
because they just copied it from other drivers.
This was added earlier for some platforms [2] because their cpufreq
drivers were getting registered before the CPUs were registered with
subsys framework. And hence they used to fail.
The same isn't true anymore though. The current code flow in the kernel
is:
start_kernel()
-> kernel_init()
-> kernel_init_freeable()
-> do_basic_setup()
-> driver_init()
-> cpu_dev_init()
-> subsys_system_register() //For CPUs
-> do_initcalls()
-> cpufreq_register_driver()
Clearly, the CPUs will always get registered with subsys framework
before any cpufreq driver can get probed. Remove the flag and update the
relevant drivers.
Link: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tglx/history.git/commit/include/linux/cpufreq.h?id=7cc9f0d9a1ab04cedc60d64fd8dcf7df224a3b4d # [1]
Link: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tglx/history.git/commit/arch/arm/mach-sa1100/cpu-sa1100.c?id=f59d3bbe35f6268d729f51be82af8325d62f20f5 # [2]
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
|
| /openbmc/linux/include/linux/ |
| H A D | cpufreq.h | 5ae4a4b4 Mon Feb 01 22:55:11 CST 2021 Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> cpufreq: Remove CPUFREQ_STICKY flag
During cpufreq driver's registration, if the ->init() callback for all
the CPUs fail then there is not much point in keeping the driver around
as it will only account for more of unnecessary noise, for example
cpufreq core will try to suspend/resume the driver which never got
registered properly.
The removal of such a driver is avoided if the driver carries the
CPUFREQ_STICKY flag. This was added way back [1] in 2004 and perhaps no
one should ever need it now. A lot of drivers do set this flag, probably
because they just copied it from other drivers.
This was added earlier for some platforms [2] because their cpufreq
drivers were getting registered before the CPUs were registered with
subsys framework. And hence they used to fail.
The same isn't true anymore though. The current code flow in the kernel
is:
start_kernel()
-> kernel_init()
-> kernel_init_freeable()
-> do_basic_setup()
-> driver_init()
-> cpu_dev_init()
-> subsys_system_register() //For CPUs
-> do_initcalls()
-> cpufreq_register_driver()
Clearly, the CPUs will always get registered with subsys framework
before any cpufreq driver can get probed. Remove the flag and update the
relevant drivers.
Link: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tglx/history.git/commit/include/linux/cpufreq.h?id=7cc9f0d9a1ab04cedc60d64fd8dcf7df224a3b4d # [1]
Link: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tglx/history.git/commit/arch/arm/mach-sa1100/cpu-sa1100.c?id=f59d3bbe35f6268d729f51be82af8325d62f20f5 # [2]
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
|