[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#991921: linux: Please enable CPUFREQ options for RPi 0/0w/1



Hi,

On vrijdag 6 augustus 2021 15:14:26 CEST Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 05, 2021 at 05:26:09PM +0000, Diederik de Haas wrote:
> > https://salsa.debian.org/raspi-team/image-specs/-/issues/7#note_206349
> > 
> > So I build my own kernel with the following patch:
> > +CONFIG_CLK_RASPBERRYPI=y
> 
> Would CONFIG_CLK_RASPBERRYPI=m be enough?

Maybe. I haven't tried that. I 'copied' what was done for arm64 and armhf in
https://salsa.debian.org/kernel-team/linux/-/commit/7dc3d9453272836a9571c30b9776a85a5e41c657
https://salsa.debian.org/kernel-team/linux/-/commit/c4ab143979cc30c395251a48ba6b5b8969973b70

If I grep on CLK on configs on my amd64 machine and various RPi's, 
then they all have '=y' on them, so it appears to be the standard/norm.

> > +CONFIG_CPUFREQ_DT=m
> > +CONFIG_CPUFREQ_DT_PLATDEV=y
> > +CONFIG_ARM_RASPBERRYPI_CPUFREQ=m
> 
> These look reasonable.
> 
> > -CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_DEFAULT_GOV_PERFORMANCE=y
> > +# CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_DEFAULT_GOV_PERFORMANCE is not set
> > -# CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_DEFAULT_GOV_ONDEMAND is not set
> > +CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_DEFAULT_GOV_ONDEMAND=y
> > -CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_ONDEMAND=m
> > +CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_ONDEMAND=y
> 
> Hmm, CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_ONDEMAND=m is already there, so you should be
> able to switch to that if you prefer it?!

Yes, afaik it isn't needed.
I did notice that there are 2 schedulers which are often used as default,
namely 'performance' and 'schedutil' and those are also builtin.
That's the reason I made 'ondemand' builtin as well, but it's entirely 
possible that correlation != causation and I inferred 
an incorrect 'conclusion'.

Trying to find why 'performance' and 'schedutil' were builtin, resulted in
https://salsa.debian.org/kernel-team/linux/-/commit/e5b976c268e44d452bc5ae23b765eab26c4409ae
which suggest the (sole) reason that it got builtin is that it couldn't be
modular in 4.9. That can very well have changed since.
It could be that 'performance' and 'schedutil' can now also be done as
modules, but that's outside the scope of this bug report.
And I don't think I'm qualified to make an informed choice/change on this.

Cheers,
  Diederik

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


Reply to: