Add a new cpufreq driver for Tegra186 (and likely later).
The CPUs are organized into two clusters, Denver and A57,
with two and four cores respectively. CPU frequency can be
adjusted by writing the desired rate divisor and a voltage
hint to a special per-core register.

The frequency of each core can be set individually; however,
this is just a hint as all CPUs in a cluster will run at
the maximum rate of non-idle CPUs in the cluster.
Signed-off-by: NMikko Perttunen <mperttunen@nvidia.com>
Acked-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

According to the previous error handling code, it is likely that
'goto out_free_opp' is expected here in order to avoid a memory leak in
error handling path.
Signed-off-by: NChristophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>
Acked-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

If the cpufreq driver tries to modify voltage/freq during suspend/resume
it might need to control an external PMIC via I2C or SPI but those
devices might be already suspended. This issue is likely to happen
whenever the LDOs have their vin-supply set.

To avoid this scenario we just increase cpufreq to the maximum before
suspend.
Signed-off-by: NLeonard Crestez <leonard.crestez@nxp.com>
Reviewed-by: NLucas Stach <l.stach@pengutronix.de>
Acked-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

If there are any errors in getting the cpu0 regulators, the driver returns
-ENOENT. In case the regulators are not yet available, the devm_regulator_get
calls will return -EPROBE_DEFER, so that the driver can be probed later.
If we return -ENOENT, the driver will fail its initialization and will
not try to probe again (when the regulators become available).

Return the actual error received from regulator_get in probe. Print a
differentiated message in case we need to probe the device later and
in case we actually failed. Also add a message to inform when the
driver has been successfully registered.
Signed-off-by: NIrina Tirdea <irina.tirdea@nxp.com>
Signed-off-by: NLeonard Crestez <leonard.crestez@nxp.com>
Reviewed-by: NLucas Stach <l.stach@pengutronix.de>
Acked-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

Make the schedutil governor take the initial (default) value of the
rate_limit_us sysfs attribute from the (new) transition_delay_us
policy parameter (to be set by the scaling driver).

That will allow scaling drivers to make schedutil use smaller default
values of rate_limit_us and reduce the default average time interval
between consecutive frequency changes.

Make intel_pstate set transition_delay_us to 500.
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Acked-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>

There is a report that after commit 27622b06 ("cpufreq: Convert
to hotplug state machine"), the normal CPU offline/online cycle
fails on some platforms.

According to the ftrace result, this problem was triggered on
platforms using acpi-cpufreq as the default cpufreq driver,
and due to the lack of some ACPI freq method (eg. _PCT),
cpufreq_online() failed and returned a negative value, so the CPU
hotplug state machine rolled back the CPU online process.  Actually,
from the user's perspective, the failure of cpufreq_online() should
not prevent that CPU from being brought up, although cpufreq might
not work on that CPU.

BTW, during system startup cpufreq_online() is not invoked via CPU
online but by the cpufreq device creation process, so the APs can be
brought up even though cpufreq_online() fails in that stage.

This patch ignores the return value of cpufreq_online/offline() and
lets the cpufreq framework deal with the failure.  cpufreq_online()
itself will do a proper rollback in that case and if _PCT is missing,
the ACPI cpufreq driver will print a warning if the corresponding
debug options have been enabled.

Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=194581
Fixes: 27622b06 ("cpufreq: Convert to hotplug state machine")
Reported-and-tested-by: NTomasz Maciej Nowak <tmn505@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: NChen Yu <yu.c.chen@intel.com>
Acked-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Cc: 4.9+ <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 4.9+
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

Use same parameters as INTEL_FAM6_ATOM_GOLDMONT to enable
Gemini Lake.
Signed-off-by: NBox, David E <david.e.box@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: NSrinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

Some computations in intel_pstate_get_min_max() are not necessary
and one of its two callers doesn't even use the full result.

First off, the fixed-point value of cpu->max_perf represents a
non-negative number between 0 and 1 inclusive and cpu->min_perf
cannot be greater than cpu->max_perf.  It is not necessary to check
those conditions every time the numbers in question are used.

Moreover, since intel_pstate_max_within_limits() only needs the
upper boundary, it doesn't make sense to compute the lower one in
there and returning min and max from intel_pstate_get_min_max()
via pointers doesn't look particularly nice.

For the above reasons, drop intel_pstate_get_min_max(), add a helper
to get the base P-state for min/max computations and carry out them
directly in the previous callers of intel_pstate_get_min_max().
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

intel_pstate_hwp_set() is the only function walking policy->cpus
in intel_pstate.  The rest of the code simply assumes one CPU per
policy, including the initialization code.

Therefore it doesn't make sense for intel_pstate_hwp_set() to
walk policy->cpus as it is guaranteed to have only one bit set
for policy->cpu.

For this reason, rearrange intel_pstate_hwp_set() to take the CPU
number as the argument and drop the loop over policy->cpus from it.
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

Add a new function pid_in_use() to return the information on whether
or not the PID-based P-state selection algorithm is in use.

That allows a couple of complicated conditions in the code to be
reduced to simple checks against the new function's return value.
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

The cpu_defaults structure is redundant, because it only contains
one member of type struct pstate_funcs which can be used directly
instead of struct cpu_defaults.

For this reason, drop struct cpu_defaults, use struct pstate_funcs
directly instead of it where applicable and rename all of the
variables of that type accordingly.
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

Move the definitions of the cpu_defaults structures after the
definitions of utilization update callback routines to avoid
extra declarations of the latter.
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

Avoid using extra function pointers during P-state selection by
dropping the get_target_pstate member from struct pstate_funcs,
adding a new update_util callback to it (to be registered with
the CPU scheduler as the utilization update callback in the active
mode) and reworking the utilization update callback routines to
invoke specific P-state selection functions directly.
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

Notice that some overhead in the utilization update callbacks
registered by intel_pstate in the active mode can be avoided if
those callbacks are tailored to specific configurations of the
driver.  For example, the utilization update callback for the HWP
enabled case only needs to update the average CPU performance
periodically whereas the utilization update callback for the
PID-based algorithm does not need to take IO-wait boosting into
account and so on.

With that in mind, define three utilization update callbacks for
three different use cases: HWP enabled, the CPU load "powersave"
P-state selection algorithm and the PID-based "powersave" P-state
selection algorithm and modify the driver initialization to
choose the callback matching its current configuration.
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

One of the checks in intel_pstate_update_status() implicitly relies
on the information that there are only two struct cpufreq_driver
objects available, but it is better to do it directly against the
value it really is about (to make the code easier to follow if
nothing else).
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

The driver_registered variable in intel_pstate is used for checking
whether or not the driver has been registered, but intel_pstate_driver
can be used for that too (with the rule that the driver is not
registered as long as it is NULL).

That is a bit more straightforward and the code may be simplified
a bit this way, so modify the driver accordingly.
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

PID controller parameters only need to be initialized if the
get_target_pstate_use_performance() P-state selection routine
is going to be used.  It is not necessary to initialize them
otherwise, so don't do that.
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

In the HWP enabled case pid_params.sample_rate_ns only needs to be
updated once, because it is global, so do that when setting hwp_active
instead of doing it during the initialization of every CPU.

Moreover, pid_params.sample_rate_ms is never used if HWP is enabled,
so do not update it at all then.
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

intel_pstate_busy_pid_reset() is the only caller of pid_reset(),
pid_p_gain_set(), pid_i_gain_set(), and pid_d_gain_set().  Moreover,
it passes constants as two parameters of pid_reset() and all of
the other routines above essentially contain the same code, so
fold all of them into the caller and drop unnecessary computations.

Introduce percent_fp() for converting integer values in percent
to fixed-point fractions and use it in the above code cleanup.

Finally, rename intel_pstate_busy_pid_reset() to
intel_pstate_pid_reset() as it also is used for the
initialization of PID parameters for every CPU and the
meaning of the "busy" part of the name is not particularly
clear.
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

There is only one caller of intel_pstate_reset_all_pid(), which is
pid_param_set() used in the debugfs interface only, and having that
code split does not make it particularly convenient to follow.

For this reason, move the body of intel_pstate_reset_all_pid() into
its caller and drop that function.

Also change the loop from for_each_online_cpu() (which is obviously
racy with respect to CPU offline/online) to for_each_possible_cpu(),
so that all PID parameters are reset for all CPUs regardless of their
online/offline status (to prevent, for example, a previously offline
CPU from going online with a stale set of PID parameters).
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

Notice that both the existing struct cpu_defaults instances in which
PID parameters are actually initialized use the same values of those
parameters, so it is not really necessary to copy them over to
pid_params dynamically.

Instead, initialize pid_params statically with those values and
drop the unused pid_policy member from struct cpu_defaults along
with copy_pid_params() used for initializing it.
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

The P-state selection algorithm used by intel_pstate for Atom
processors is not based on the PID controller and the initialization
of PID parametrs for those processors is pointless and confusing, so
drop it.
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

After recent changes the purpose of struct perf_limits is not
particularly clear any more and the code may be made somewhat
easier to follow by eliminating it, so go for that.
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

The cpufreq core only tries to create symbolic links from CPU
directories in sysfs to policy directories in cpufreq_add_dev(),
either when a given CPU is registered or when the cpufreq driver
is registered, whichever happens first.  That is not sufficient,
however, because cpufreq_add_dev() may be called for an offline CPU
whose policy object has not been created yet and, quite obviously,
the symbolic cannot be added in that case.

Fix that by making cpufreq_online() attempt to add symbolic links to
policy objects for the CPUs in the related_cpus mask of every new
policy object created by it.

The cpufreq_driver_lock locking around the for_each_cpu() loop
in cpufreq_online() is dropped, because it is not necessary and the
code is somewhat simpler without it.  Moreover, failures to create
a symbolic link will not be regarded as hard errors any more and
the CPUs without those links will not be taken offline automatically,
but that should not be problematic in practice.
Reported-and-tested-by: NPrashanth Prakash <pprakash@codeaurora.org>
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Cc: 4.9+ <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 4.9+

Both intel_pstate_verify_policy() and intel_cpufreq_verify_policy()
set policy->cpuinfo.max_freq depending on the turbo status, but the
updates made by them are discarded by the core, because the policy
object passed to them by the core is temporary and cpuinfo.max_freq
from that object is not copied to the final policy object in
cpufreq_set_policy().

However, cpufreq_set_policy() passes the temporary policy object
to the ->setpolicy callback of the driver, so intel_pstate_set_policy()
actually sees the policy->cpuinfo.max_freq value updated by
intel_pstate_verify_policy() and not the final one.  It also
updates policy->max sometimes which basically has no effect after
it returns, because the core discards that update.

To avoid confusion, eliminate policy->cpuinfo.max_freq updates from
intel_pstate_verify_policy() and intel_cpufreq_verify_policy()
entirely and check the maximum frequency explicitly in
intel_pstate_update_perf_limits() instead of relying on the
transiently updated policy->cpuinfo.max_freq value.

Moreover, move the max->policy adjustment carried out in
intel_pstate_set_policy() to a separate function and call that
function from the ->verify driver callbacks to ensure that it will
actually be effective.
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

The coordination of P-state limits used by intel_pstate in the active
mode (ie. by default) is problematic, because it synchronizes all of
the limits (ie. the global ones and the per-policy ones) so as to use
one common pair of P-state limits (min and max) across all CPUs in
the system.  The drawbacks of that are as follows:

 - If P-states are coordinated in hardware, it is not necessary
   to coordinate them in software on top of that, so in that case
   all of the above activity is in vain.

 - If P-states are not coordinated in hardware, then the processor
   is actually capable of setting different P-states for different
   CPUs and coordinating them at the software level simply doesn't
   allow that capability to be utilized.

 - The coordination works in such a way that setting a per-policy
   limit (eg. scaling_max_freq) for one CPU causes the common
   effective limit to change (and it will affect all of the other
   CPUs too), but subsequent reads from the corresponding sysfs
   attributes for the other CPUs will return stale values (which
   is confusing).

 - Reads from the global P-state limit attributes, min_perf_pct and
   max_perf_pct, return the effective common values and not the last
   values set through these attributes.  However, the last values
   set through these attributes become hard limits that cannot be
   exceeded by writes to scaling_min_freq and scaling_max_freq,
   respectively, and they are not exposed, so essentially users
   have to remember what they are.

All of that is painful enough to warrant a change of the management
of P-state limits in the active mode.

To that end, redesign the active mode P-state limits management in
intel_pstate in accordance with the following rules:

 (1) All CPUs are affected by the global limits (that is, none of
     them can be requested to run faster than the global max and
     none of them can be requested to run slower than the global
     min).

 (2) Each individual CPU is affected by its own per-policy limits
     (that is, it cannot be requested to run faster than its own
     per-policy max and it cannot be requested to run slower than
     its own per-policy min).

 (3) The global and per-policy limits can be set independently.

Also, the global maximum and minimum P-state limits will be always
expressed as percentages of the maximum supported turbo P-state.
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

Extend the set of systems for which intel_pstate will use the
"powersave" P-state selection algorithm based on CPU load in the
active mode by systems with ACPI preferred profile set to "tablet",
"appliance PC", "desktop", or "workstation" (ie. everything with a
specified preferred profile that is not a "server").
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

Currently, some processors supporting HWP are only supported by
intel_pstate if HWP is actually going to be used and not supported
otherwise which is confusing.

Specifically, they are not supported if "intel_pstate=no_hwp" is
passed to the kernel in the command line or if the driver is started
in the passive mode ("intel_pstate=passive").

There is no real reason for that, because everything about those
processor is known anyway and the driver can work with them in all
modes, so make that happen, but use the load-based P-state selection
algorithm for the active mode "powersave" policy with them.
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

On CPU online the cpufreq core restores the previous governor (or
the previous "policy" setting for ->setpolicy drivers), but it does
not restore the min/max limits at the same time, which is confusing,
inconsistent and real pain for users who set the limits and then
suspend/resume the system (using full suspend), in which case the
limits are reset on all CPUs except for the boot one.

Fix this by making cpufreq_online() restore the limits when an inactive
policy is brought online.

The commit log and patch are inspired from Rafael's earlier work.
Reported-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Cc: 4.3+ <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 4.3+
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

The policy->cpuinfo.max_freq and policy->max updates in
intel_cpufreq_turbo_update() are excessive as they are done for no
good reason and may lead to problems in principle, so they should be
dropped.  However, after dropping them intel_cpufreq_turbo_update()
becomes almost entirely pointless, because the check made by it is
made again down the road in intel_pstate_prepare_request().  The
only thing in it that still needs to be done is the call to
update_turbo_state(), so drop intel_cpufreq_turbo_update() altogether
and make its callers invoke update_turbo_state() directly instead of
it.

In addition to that, fix intel_cpufreq_verify_policy() so that it
checks global.no_turbo in addition to global.turbo_disabled when
updating policy->cpuinfo.max_freq to make it consistent with
intel_pstate_verify_policy().

Fixes: 001c76f0 (cpufreq: intel_pstate: Generic governors support)
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

In the active mode intel_pstate currently uses two sets of global
limits, each associated with one of the possible scaling_governor
settings in that mode: "powersave" or "performance".

The driver switches over from one of those sets to the other
depending on the scaling_governor setting for the last CPU whose
per-policy cpufreq interface in sysfs was last used to change
parameters exposed in there.  That obviously leads to no end of
issues when the scaling_governor settings differ between CPUs.

The most recent issue was introduced by commit a240c4aa (cpufreq:
intel_pstate: Do not reinit performance limits in ->setpolicy)
that eliminated the reinitialization of "performance" limits in
intel_pstate_set_policy() preventing the max limit from being set
to anything below 100, among other things.

Namely, an undesirable side effect of commit a240c4aa is that
now, after setting scaling_governor to "performance" in the active
mode, the per-policy limits for the CPU in question go to the highest
level and stay there even when it is switched back to "powersave"
later.

As it turns out, some distributions set scaling_governor to
"performance" temporarily for all CPUs to speed-up system
initialization, so that change causes them to misbehave later.

To fix that, get rid of the performance/powersave global limits
split and use just one set of global limits for everything.

From the user's persepctive, after this modification, when
scaling_governor is switched from "performance" to "powersave"
or the other way around on one CPU, the limits settings (ie. the
global max/min_perf_pct and per-policy scaling_max/min_freq for
any CPUs) will not change.  Still, switching from "performance"
to "powersave" or the other way around changes the way in which
P-states are selected and in particular "performance" causes the
driver to always request the highest P-state it is allowed to ask
for for the given CPU.

Fixes: a240c4aa (cpufreq: intel_pstate: Do not reinit performance limits in ->setpolicy)
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

The best place to register the CPU cooling device is from the cpufreq
driver as we would know if all the resources are already available or
not. That's what is done for the cpufreq-dt.c driver as well.

The cpu-cooling driver for dbx500 platform was just (un)registering
with the thermal framework and that can be handled easily by the cpufreq
driver as well and in proper sequence as well.

Get rid of the cooling driver and its its users and manage everything
from the cpufreq driver instead.
Signed-off-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Tested-by: NLinus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

There is a missing newline in show_cpuinfo_cur_freq(), so add it,
but while at it clean that function up somewhat too.
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Acked-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Cc: All applicable <stable@vger.kernel.org>

Currently, intel_pstate_update_perf_limits() first converts the
policy minimum and maximum limits into percentages of the maximum
turbo frequency (rounding up to an integer) and then converts these
percentages to fractions (by using fixed-point arithmetic to divide
them by 100).

That introduces a rounding error unnecessarily, because the fractions
can be obtained by carrying out fixed-point divisions directly on the
input numbers.

Rework the computations in intel_pstate_hwp_set() to use fractions
instead of percentages (and drop redundant local variables from
there) and modify intel_pstate_update_perf_limits() to compute the
fractions directly and percentages out of them.

While at it, introduce percent_ext_fp() for converting percentages
to fractions (with extended number of fraction bits) and use it in
the computations.
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

In the functions intel_pstate_hwp_set(), min/max range from HWP capability
MSR along with max_perf_pct and min_perf_pct, is used to set the HWP
request MSR. In some cases this doesn't result in the correct HWP max/min
in HWP request.

For example: In the following case:

HWP capabilities from MSR 0x771
0x70a1220

Here cpufreq min/max frequencies from above MSR dump are 700MHz and 3.2GHz
respectively.

This will result in
hwp_min = 0x07
hwp_max = 0x20

To limit max frequency to 2GHz:

perf_limits->max_perf_pct = 63 (2GHz as a percent of 3.2GHz rounded up)

With the current calculation:
adj_range = max_perf_pct * range / 100;
adj_range = 63 * (32 - 7) / 100
adj_range = 15

max = hw_min + adj_range;
max = 7 + 15 = 22

This will result in HWP request of 0x160f, which will result in a
frequency cap of 2.2GHz not 2GHz.

The problem with the above calculation is that hwp_min of 7 is treated
as 0% in the range. But max_perf_pct is calculated with respect to minimum
as 0 and max as 3.2GHz or hwp_max, so adding hwp_min to it will result in
more than the desired.

Since the min_perf_pct and max_perf_pct is already a percent of max
frequency or hwp_max, this min/max HWP request value can be calculated
directly applying these percentage to hwp_max.
Signed-off-by: NSrinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

Fix the debugfs interface for PID tuning to actually update
pid_params.sample_rate_ns on PID parameters updates, as changing
pid_params.sample_rate_ms via debugfs has no effect now.

Fixes: a4675fbc (cpufreq: intel_pstate: Replace timers with utilization update callbacks)
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Acked-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>

On some platforms, property device-type may be missed in soc node
in dts which caused the bus-frequency can not be obtained correctly.

This patch enhanced the bus-frequency calculation. When property
device-type is missed in dts, bus-frequency will be obtained by
looking up clock table to get platform clock and hence get its
frequency.
Signed-off-by: NTang Yuantian <andy.tang@nxp.com>
Acked-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

The Mediatek MT8173 is just one of several SOCs from the same MT817x
family, including the 6-core (4-little/2-big) MT8176.

The mt8173-cpufreq driver supports all of these SOCs, however,
machines using them may use a different machine compatible.

Since this driver checks explicitly for the machine compatible
string, add support for the whole family.
Signed-off-by: NDaniel Kurtz <djkurtz@chromium.org>
Acked-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

This function is only called once at boot by device_initcall(), so mark
it as __init.
Signed-off-by: NDaniel Kurtz <djkurtz@chromium.org>
Acked-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

intel_pstate_hwp_set_policy() is a wrapper around
intel_pstate_hwp_set(), but the only value it adds is to check
hwp_active before calling the latter and one of its two callers
has already checked hwp_active before that happens, so in that
code path the additional check is redundant and using the wrapper
is rather pointless.

For this reason, drop intel_pstate_hwp_set_policy() and make its
callers invoke intel_pstate_hwp_set() directly (after checking
hwp_active).
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Acked-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>