Re: [PATCH v6 03/10] PM / EM: update callback structure and add device pointer

From: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
To: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Cc: nm@ti.com, juri.lelli@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org,
	viresh.kumar@linaro.org, liviu.dudau@arm.com,
	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, bjorn.andersson@linaro.org,
	bsegall@google.com, alyssa.rosenzweig@collabora.com,
	mka@chromium.org, amit.kucheria@verdurent.com,
	lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org,
	khilman@kernel.org, agross@kernel.org, b.zolnierkie@samsung.com,
	steven.price@arm.com, cw00.choi@samsung.com, mingo@redhat.com,
	linux-imx@nxp.com, rui.zhang@intel.com, mgorman@suse.de,
	orjan.eide@arm.com, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, s.hauer@pengutronix.de,
	rostedt@goodmis.org, linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org,
	matthias.bgg@gmail.com, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org,
	Dietmar.Eggemann@arm.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	airlied@linux.ie, tomeu.vizoso@collabora.com, qperret@google.com,
	sboyd@kernel.org, rdunlap@infradead.org, rjw@rjwysocki.net,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel@pengutronix.de,
	sudeep.holla@arm.com, patrick.bellasi@matbug.net,
	shawnguo@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 03/10] PM / EM: update callback structure and add device pointer
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2020 16:28:18 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <245720a0-c812-ccc8-235e-6eed6f216e4b@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200423132243.GA65632@linaro.org>

Hi Daniel,

On 4/23/20 2:22 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 09:42:03AM +0100, Lukasz Luba wrote:
>> The Energy Model framework is going to support devices other that CPUs. In
>> order to make this happen change the callback function and add pointer to
>> a device as an argument.
>>
>> Update the related users to use new function and new callback from the
>> Energy Model.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
>> ---
> 
> [ ... ]
> 
>> +static struct em_perf_domain *
>> +em_create_pd(struct device *dev, int nr_states, struct em_data_callback *cb,
>> +	     cpumask_t *span)
>>   {
>>   	unsigned long opp_eff, prev_opp_eff = ULONG_MAX;
>>   	unsigned long power, freq, prev_freq = 0;
>> @@ -106,7 +107,7 @@ static struct em_perf_domain *em_create_pd(cpumask_t *span, int nr_states,
>>   		 * lowest performance state of 'cpu' above 'freq' and updates
>>   		 * 'power' and 'freq' accordingly.
>>   		 */
>> -		ret = cb->active_power(&power, &freq, cpu);
>> +		ret = cb->active_power(&power, &freq, dev);
>>   		if (ret) {
>>   			pr_err("pd%d: invalid perf. state: %d\n", cpu, ret);
>>   			goto free_ps_table;
> 
> Why are the changes 'cpu' to 'dev' in the patch 4/10 instead of this one ?

The patch 4/10 is quite big and I didn't want to put also this change in
there. I thought for readability it would be better to have a separate
patch with self-contained change (or I got your suggestion too strict).

In this patch I just wanted to show more precisely that this function
callback 'active_power' which is used by 2 users (currently):
cpufreq/scmi-cpufreq.c and opp/of.c
is going to change an argument and these files are affected.

The 4/10 changes a lot lines, while first 3 patches can be treated as
a preparation for the upcoming major change (4/10).

Thank you for the review.

Regards,
Lukasz

> 
>> @@ -237,7 +238,7 @@ int em_dev_register_perf_domain(struct device *dev, unsigned int nr_states,
>>   	}
>>   
>>   	/* Create the performance domain and add it to the Energy Model. */
>> -	pd = em_create_pd(span, nr_states, cb);
>> +	pd = em_create_pd(dev, nr_states, cb, span);
>>   	if (!pd) {
>>   		ret = -EINVAL;
>>   		goto unlock;
> 
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel