This flag is set by one of the drivers but it isn't used in the code
otherwise. Remove the unused flag and update the driver.

Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

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>

First off, some cpufreq drivers (eg. intel_pstate) can pass hints
beyond the current target frequency to the hardware and there are no
provisions for doing that in the cpufreq framework.  In particular,
today the driver has to assume that it should not allow the frequency
to fall below the one requested by the governor (or the required
capacity may not be provided) which may not be the case and which may
lead to excessive energy usage in some scenarios.

Second, the hints passed by these drivers to the hardware need not be
in terms of the frequency, so representing the utilization numbers
coming from the scheduler as frequency before passing them to those
drivers is not really useful.

Address the two points above by adding a special-purpose replacement
for the ->fast_switch callback, called ->adjust_perf, allowing the
governor to pass abstract performance level (rather than frequency)
values for the minimum (required) and target (desired) performance
along with the CPU capacity to compare them to.

Also update the schedutil governor to use the new callback instead
of ->fast_switch if present and if the utilization mertics are
frequency-invariant (that is requisite for the direct mapping
between the utilization and the CPU performance levels to be a
reasonable approximation).

Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>

Add a new field to be set when the CPUFREQ_GOV_STRICT_TARGET flag is
set for the current governor to struct cpufreq_policy, so that the
drivers needing to check CPUFREQ_GOV_STRICT_TARGET do not have to
access the governor object during every frequency transition.

Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>

Introduce a new governor flag, CPUFREQ_GOV_STRICT_TARGET, for the
governors that want the target frequency to be set exactly to the
given value without leaving any room for adjustments on the hardware
side and set this flag for the powersave and performance governors.

Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>

A new cpufreq governor flag will be added subsequently, so replace
the bool dynamic_switching fleid in struct cpufreq_governor with a
flags field and introduce CPUFREQ_GOV_DYNAMIC_SWITCHING to set for
the "dynamic switching" governors instead of it.

No intentional functional impact.

Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>

The restore_freq field in struct cpufreq_policy is only used by
__target_index() in one place and a local variable in that function
may as well be used instead of it, so drop it and modify
__target_index() accordingly.

Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>

Add a helper function to test the flags of the cpufreq driver in use
againt a given flags mask.

In particular, this will be needed to test the
CPUFREQ_NEED_UPDATE_LIMITS cpufreq driver flag in the schedutil
governor.

Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

Generally, a cpufreq driver may need to update some internal upper
and lower frequency boundaries on policy max and min changes,
respectively, but currently this does not work if the target
frequency does not change along with the policy limit.

Namely, if the target frequency does not change along with the
policy min or max, the "target_freq == policy->cur" check in
__cpufreq_driver_target() prevents driver callbacks from being
invoked and they do not even have a chance to update the
corresponding internal boundary.

This particularly affects the "powersave" and "performance"
governors that always set the target frequency to one of the
policy limits and it never changes when the other limit is updated.

To allow cpufreq the drivers needing to update internal frequency
boundaries on policy limits changes to avoid this issue, introduce
a new driver flag, CPUFREQ_NEED_UPDATE_LIMITS, that (when set) will
neutralize the check mentioned above.

Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>