lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jan]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v1 02/10] cpufreq: Add a flag to auto-register a cooling device
Date
On Monday, January 14, 2019 5:34:54 PM CET Amit Kucheria wrote:
> All cpufreq drivers do similar things to register as a cooling device.
> Provide a cpufreq driver flag so drivers can just ask the cpufreq core
> to register the cooling device on their behalf. This allows us to get
> rid of duplicated code in the drivers.
>
> Suggested-by: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org>
> Suggested-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@linaro.org>
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++
> include/linux/cpufreq.h | 6 ++++++
> 2 files changed, 23 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> index 6f23ebb395f1..cd6e750d3d82 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@
> #include <linux/syscore_ops.h>
> #include <linux/tick.h>
> #include <trace/events/power.h>
> +#include <linux/cpu_cooling.h>
>
> static LIST_HEAD(cpufreq_policy_list);
>
> @@ -1318,6 +1319,14 @@ static int cpufreq_online(unsigned int cpu)
> if (cpufreq_driver->ready)
> cpufreq_driver->ready(policy);
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_THERMAL
> + if (cpufreq_driver->flags & CPUFREQ_AUTO_REGISTER_COOLING_DEV) {
> + struct thermal_cooling_device **cdev = &policy->cooldev;
> +
> + *cdev = of_cpufreq_cooling_register(policy);

What would be wrong with

policy->cooldev = of_cpufreq_cooling_register(policy);

> + }
> +#endif

Please remove the #ifdefs from cpufreq_online() and cpufreq_offline().

Use wrappers that would become empty stubs for CONFIG_CPU_THERMAL unset.

> +
> pr_debug("initialization complete\n");
>
> return 0;
> @@ -1411,6 +1420,14 @@ static int cpufreq_offline(unsigned int cpu)
> if (has_target())
> cpufreq_exit_governor(policy);
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_THERMAL
> + if (cpufreq_driver->flags & CPUFREQ_AUTO_REGISTER_COOLING_DEV) {
> + struct thermal_cooling_device **cdev = &policy->cooldev;
> +
> + cpufreq_cooling_unregister(*cdev);

Again, why don't you simply pass policy->cooldev here?

Also, would it make sense to clear policy->cooldev at this point? It points
to freed memory after cpufreq_cooling_unregister().

> + }
> +#endif
> +
> /*
> * Perform the ->exit() even during light-weight tear-down,
> * since this is a core component, and is essential for the
> diff --git a/include/linux/cpufreq.h b/include/linux/cpufreq.h
> index 7d0cf54125fa..70ad02088825 100644
> --- a/include/linux/cpufreq.h
> +++ b/include/linux/cpufreq.h
> @@ -390,6 +390,12 @@ struct cpufreq_driver {
> */
> #define CPUFREQ_NO_AUTO_DYNAMIC_SWITCHING (1 << 6)
>
> +/*
> + * Set by drivers that want the core to automatically register the cpufreq
> + * driver as a thermal cooling device
> + */
> +#define CPUFREQ_AUTO_REGISTER_COOLING_DEV (1 << 7)
> +
> int cpufreq_register_driver(struct cpufreq_driver *driver_data);
> int cpufreq_unregister_driver(struct cpufreq_driver *driver_data);
>
>


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-01-17 00:05    [W:0.284 / U:3.988 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site