policy->max_freq_req represents the maximum allowed frequency as
requested by the policyX/scaling_max_freq sysfs file. This request
applies to all CPUs of the policy. It is not possible to request
a per-CPU maximum frequency.

Thus, the interaction between the policy boost and scaling_max_freq
settings should be handled by adding a boost specific QoS constraint.
This will be handled in the following patches.

This reverts commit 1608f0230510489d74a2e24e47054233b7e4678a.

Signed-off-by: Pierre Gondois <pierre.gondois@arm.com>
---
 drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 4 ----
 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
index 852e024facc3c..11b29c7dbea9e 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
@@ -1478,10 +1478,6 @@ static int cpufreq_policy_online(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
 
 		blocking_notifier_call_chain(&cpufreq_policy_notifier_list,
 				CPUFREQ_CREATE_POLICY, policy);
-	} else {
-		ret = freq_qos_update_request(policy->max_freq_req, policy->max);
-		if (ret < 0)
-			goto out_destroy_policy;
 	}
 
 	if (cpufreq_driver->get && has_target()) {
-- 
2.43.0

On 2025/12/4 18:13, Pierre Gondois wrote:
> policy->max_freq_req represents the maximum allowed frequency as
> requested by the policyX/scaling_max_freq sysfs file. This request
> applies to all CPUs of the policy. It is not possible to request
> a per-CPU maximum frequency.
> 
> Thus, the interaction between the policy boost and scaling_max_freq
> settings should be handled by adding a boost specific QoS constraint.
> This will be handled in the following patches.
> 
> This reverts commit 1608f0230510489d74a2e24e47054233b7e4678a.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Pierre Gondois <pierre.gondois@arm.com>
> ---
>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 4 ----
>  1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> index 852e024facc3c..11b29c7dbea9e 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> @@ -1478,10 +1478,6 @@ static int cpufreq_policy_online(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
>  
>  		blocking_notifier_call_chain(&cpufreq_policy_notifier_list,
>  				CPUFREQ_CREATE_POLICY, policy);
> -	} else {
> -		ret = freq_qos_update_request(policy->max_freq_req, policy->max);
> -		if (ret < 0)
> -			goto out_destroy_policy;
>  	}
>  
>  	if (cpufreq_driver->get && has_target()) {

I don't think this commit should be reverted individually. These changes
can be included in patch 4, as they are doing the same thing if I
understand it correctly.

Hello Lifeng,

On 12/4/25 13:09, zhenglifeng (A) wrote:
> On 2025/12/4 18:13, Pierre Gondois wrote:
>> policy->max_freq_req represents the maximum allowed frequency as
>> requested by the policyX/scaling_max_freq sysfs file. This request
>> applies to all CPUs of the policy. It is not possible to request
>> a per-CPU maximum frequency.
>>
>> Thus, the interaction between the policy boost and scaling_max_freq
>> settings should be handled by adding a boost specific QoS constraint.
>> This will be handled in the following patches.
>>
>> This reverts commit 1608f0230510489d74a2e24e47054233b7e4678a.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Pierre Gondois<pierre.gondois@arm.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 4 ----
>>   1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>> index 852e024facc3c..11b29c7dbea9e 100644
>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>> @@ -1478,10 +1478,6 @@ static int cpufreq_policy_online(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
>>   
>>   		blocking_notifier_call_chain(&cpufreq_policy_notifier_list,
>>   				CPUFREQ_CREATE_POLICY, policy);
>> -	} else {
>> -		ret = freq_qos_update_request(policy->max_freq_req, policy->max);
>> -		if (ret < 0)
>> -			goto out_destroy_policy;
>>   	}
>>   
>>   	if (cpufreq_driver->get && has_target()) {
> I don't think this commit should be reverted individually. These changes
> can be included in patch 4, as they are doing the same thing if I
> understand it correctly.

Ok I can do that, unless some else prefers it that way,

Thanks for the review,
Pierre