We don't need to set .owner = THIS_MODULE any more in cpufreq drivers
as this field isn't used any more by the cpufreq core.
This patch removes it and updates all dependent drivers accordingly.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
PRECHANGE and POSTCHANGE notifiers must be called in groups, i.e either both
should be called or both shouldn't be.
In case we have started PRECHANGE notifier and found an error, we must call
POSTCHANGE notifier with freqs.new = freqs.old to guarantee that sequence of
calling notifiers is complete.
This patch fixes it.
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
The "index" field of struct cpufreq_frequency_table was never an
index and isn't used at all by the cpufreq core. It only is useful
for cpufreq drivers for their internal purposes.
Many people nowadays blindly set it in ascending order with the
assumption that the core will use it, which is a mistake.
Rename it to "driver_data" as that's what its purpose is. All of its
users are updated accordingly.
[rjw: Changelog]
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Acked-by: Simon Horman <horms+renesas@verge.net.au>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
policy->cpus contains all online cpus that have single shared clock line. And
their frequencies are always updated together.
Many SMP system's cpufreq drivers take care of this in individual drivers but
the best place for this code is in cpufreq core.
This patch modifies cpufreq_notify_transition() to notify frequency change for
all cpus in policy->cpus and hence updates all users of this API.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Acked-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>
Tested-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
We don't have any of the other code for VDDINT, including the variable
declaration, so don't try to get it as we can't build.
Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Signed-off-by: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>
They're already consistent but it saves remembering to do so.
Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Signed-off-by: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>
The header change has removed an implicit include of module.h, breaking
the build due to the use of THIS_MODULE. Fix that.
Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>
By extension from the 667MHz based clocks currently supported add 100MHz
and 200MHz operating points. Due to a lack of documentation these have not
been confirmed as supported but by extension from the existing frequencies
they should be OK, and I've given them quite a bit of runtime testing.
The major risk is synchronization with the non-ARM clocks but as we
can't currently scale the ARM PLL the risk should be relatively low.
Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Acked-by: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>
Signed-off-by: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>
The CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE notification is used to update things that depend on
the system clock rates. Since this may include the interfaces used to talk
to the regulators do the notification before we try to update regulators
to reflect lowered system clock rate.
The voltage scaling is just a power optimisation and may not happen at all
so there's no concern about it not having completed.
Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Acked-by: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>
Signed-off-by: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>
At least some newer S3C6410 silicon supports operation up to 800MHz rather
than just 667MHz. Unfortunately I don't have access to any of documentation
of this other than some running systems, add a new cpufreq table entry for
this based on the behaviour of those systems.
Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Acked-by: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>
Signed-off-by: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>
Viresh Kumar