[PATCH 2/6] thermal/drivers/cpu_cooling: Unregister with the policy

[PATCH 2/6] thermal/drivers/cpu_cooling: Unregister with the policy

[Daniel Lezcano]

Currently the function cpufreq_cooling_register() returns a cooling
device pointer which is used back as a pointer to call the function
cpufreq_cooling_unregister(). Even if it is correct, it would make
sense to not leak the structure inside a cpufreq driver and keep the
code thermal code self-encapsulate. Moreover, that forces to add an
extra variable in each driver using this function.

Instead of passing the cooling device to unregister, pass the policy.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
---
 drivers/cpufreq/arm_big_little.c               |  2 +-
 drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c                      |  2 +-
 drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c                  | 18 ++++++++++--------
 drivers/thermal/imx_thermal.c                  |  4 ++--
 .../thermal/ti-soc-thermal/ti-thermal-common.c |  2 +-
 include/linux/cpu_cooling.h                    |  6 +++---
 6 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/arm_big_little.c b/drivers/cpufreq/arm_big_little.c
index 7fe52fcddcf1..6b243202caa9 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/arm_big_little.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/arm_big_little.c
@@ -502,7 +502,7 @@ static int bL_cpufreq_exit(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
 	int cur_cluster = cpu_to_cluster(policy->cpu);
 
 	if (cur_cluster < MAX_CLUSTERS) {
-		cpufreq_cooling_unregister(cdev[cur_cluster]);
+		cpufreq_cooling_unregister(policy);
 		cdev[cur_cluster] = NULL;
 	}
 
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
index 7c72f7d3509c..dfbc9bea606c 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
@@ -1469,7 +1469,7 @@ static int cpufreq_offline(unsigned int cpu)
 	}
 
 	if (cpufreq_driver->flags & CPUFREQ_IS_COOLING_DEV) {
-		cpufreq_cooling_unregister(policy->cdev);
+		cpufreq_cooling_unregister(policy);
 		policy->cdev = NULL;
 	}
 
diff --git a/drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c b/drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c
index 83486775e593..007c7c6bf845 100644
--- a/drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c
+++ b/drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c
@@ -78,6 +78,7 @@ struct cpufreq_cooling_device {
 	struct cpufreq_policy *policy;
 	struct list_head node;
 	struct time_in_idle *idle_time;
+	struct thermal_cooling_device *cdev;
 };
 
 static DEFINE_IDA(cpufreq_ida);
@@ -606,6 +607,7 @@ __cpufreq_cooling_register(struct device_node *np,
 		goto remove_ida;
 
 	cpufreq_cdev->clipped_freq = get_state_freq(cpufreq_cdev, 0);
+	cpufreq_cdev->cdev = cdev;
 
 	mutex_lock(&cooling_list_lock);
 	/* Register the notifier for first cpufreq cooling device */
@@ -699,18 +701,18 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(of_cpufreq_cooling_register);
  *
  * This interface function unregisters the "thermal-cpufreq-%x" cooling device.
  */
-void cpufreq_cooling_unregister(struct thermal_cooling_device *cdev)
+void cpufreq_cooling_unregister(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
 {
 	struct cpufreq_cooling_device *cpufreq_cdev;
 	bool last;
 
-	if (!cdev)
-		return;
-
-	cpufreq_cdev = cdev->devdata;
-
 	mutex_lock(&cooling_list_lock);
-	list_del(&cpufreq_cdev->node);
+	list_for_each_entry(cpufreq_cdev, &cpufreq_cdev_list, node) {
+		if (cpufreq_cdev->policy == policy) {
+			list_del(&cpufreq_cdev->node);
+			break;
+		}
+	}
 	/* Unregister the notifier for the last cpufreq cooling device */
 	last = list_empty(&cpufreq_cdev_list);
 	mutex_unlock(&cooling_list_lock);
@@ -719,7 +721,7 @@ void cpufreq_cooling_unregister(struct thermal_cooling_device *cdev)
 		cpufreq_unregister_notifier(&thermal_cpufreq_notifier_block,
 					    CPUFREQ_POLICY_NOTIFIER);
 
-	thermal_cooling_device_unregister(cdev);
+	thermal_cooling_device_unregister(cpufreq_cdev->cdev);
 	ida_simple_remove(&cpufreq_ida, cpufreq_cdev->id);
 	kfree(cpufreq_cdev->idle_time);
 	kfree(cpufreq_cdev);
diff --git a/drivers/thermal/imx_thermal.c b/drivers/thermal/imx_thermal.c
index bb6754a5342c..6746f1b73eb7 100644
--- a/drivers/thermal/imx_thermal.c
+++ b/drivers/thermal/imx_thermal.c
@@ -680,7 +680,7 @@ static int imx_thermal_register_legacy_cooling(struct imx_thermal_data *data)
 
 static void imx_thermal_unregister_legacy_cooling(struct imx_thermal_data *data)
 {
-	cpufreq_cooling_unregister(data->cdev);
+	cpufreq_cooling_unregister(data->policy);
 	cpufreq_cpu_put(data->policy);
 }
 
@@ -872,7 +872,7 @@ static int imx_thermal_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
 		clk_disable_unprepare(data->thermal_clk);
 
 	thermal_zone_device_unregister(data->tz);
-	cpufreq_cooling_unregister(data->cdev);
+	cpufreq_cooling_unregister(data->policy);
 	cpufreq_cpu_put(data->policy);
 
 	return 0;
diff --git a/drivers/thermal/ti-soc-thermal/ti-thermal-common.c b/drivers/thermal/ti-soc-thermal/ti-thermal-common.c
index b4f981daeaf2..217b1aae8b4f 100644
--- a/drivers/thermal/ti-soc-thermal/ti-thermal-common.c
+++ b/drivers/thermal/ti-soc-thermal/ti-thermal-common.c
@@ -277,7 +277,7 @@ int ti_thermal_unregister_cpu_cooling(struct ti_bandgap *bgp, int id)
 	data = ti_bandgap_get_sensor_data(bgp, id);
 
 	if (data) {
-		cpufreq_cooling_unregister(data->cool_dev);
+		cpufreq_cooling_unregister(data->policy);
 		if (data->policy)
 			cpufreq_cpu_put(data->policy);
 	}
diff --git a/include/linux/cpu_cooling.h b/include/linux/cpu_cooling.h
index bae54bb7c048..89f469ee4be4 100644
--- a/include/linux/cpu_cooling.h
+++ b/include/linux/cpu_cooling.h
@@ -29,9 +29,9 @@ cpufreq_cooling_register(struct cpufreq_policy *policy);
 
 /**
  * cpufreq_cooling_unregister - function to remove cpufreq cooling device.
- * @cdev: thermal cooling device pointer.
+ * @policy: cpufreq policy
  */
-void cpufreq_cooling_unregister(struct thermal_cooling_device *cdev);
+void cpufreq_cooling_unregister(struct cpufreq_policy *policy);
 
 #else /* !CONFIG_CPU_THERMAL */
 static inline struct thermal_cooling_device *
@@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ cpufreq_cooling_register(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
 }
 
 static inline
-void cpufreq_cooling_unregister(struct thermal_cooling_device *cdev)
+void cpufreq_cooling_unregister(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
 {
 	return;
 }
-- 
2.17.1


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH 2/6] thermal/drivers/cpu_cooling: Unregister with the policy

[Viresh Kumar]

On 21-06-19, 15:22, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> Currently the function cpufreq_cooling_register() returns a cooling
> device pointer which is used back as a pointer to call the function
> cpufreq_cooling_unregister(). Even if it is correct, it would make
> sense to not leak the structure inside a cpufreq driver and keep the
> code thermal code self-encapsulate. Moreover, that forces to add an
> extra variable in each driver using this function.
> 
> Instead of passing the cooling device to unregister, pass the policy.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
> ---
>  drivers/cpufreq/arm_big_little.c               |  2 +-
>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c                      |  2 +-
>  drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c                  | 18 ++++++++++--------
>  drivers/thermal/imx_thermal.c                  |  4 ++--
>  .../thermal/ti-soc-thermal/ti-thermal-common.c |  2 +-
>  include/linux/cpu_cooling.h                    |  6 +++---
>  6 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)

Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>

-- 
viresh

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH 2/6] thermal/drivers/cpu_cooling: Unregister with the policy

[Daniel Lezcano]

On 24/06/2019 08:03, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 21-06-19, 15:22, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> Currently the function cpufreq_cooling_register() returns a cooling
>> device pointer which is used back as a pointer to call the function
>> cpufreq_cooling_unregister(). Even if it is correct, it would make
>> sense to not leak the structure inside a cpufreq driver and keep the
>> code thermal code self-encapsulate. Moreover, that forces to add an
>> extra variable in each driver using this function.
>>
>> Instead of passing the cooling device to unregister, pass the policy.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
>> ---
>>  drivers/cpufreq/arm_big_little.c               |  2 +-
>>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c                      |  2 +-
>>  drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c                  | 18 ++++++++++--------
>>  drivers/thermal/imx_thermal.c                  |  4 ++--
>>  .../thermal/ti-soc-thermal/ti-thermal-common.c |  2 +-
>>  include/linux/cpu_cooling.h                    |  6 +++---
>>  6 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> 
> Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>

Just a side note, does it make sense to have the function called from
imx_thermal.c and ti-thermal-common.c? Sounds like also a leakage from
cpufreq to thermal drivers, no?


-- 
 <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH 2/6] thermal/drivers/cpu_cooling: Unregister with the policy

[Viresh Kumar]

On 24-06-19, 09:30, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 24/06/2019 08:03, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 21-06-19, 15:22, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> >> Currently the function cpufreq_cooling_register() returns a cooling
> >> device pointer which is used back as a pointer to call the function
> >> cpufreq_cooling_unregister(). Even if it is correct, it would make
> >> sense to not leak the structure inside a cpufreq driver and keep the
> >> code thermal code self-encapsulate. Moreover, that forces to add an
> >> extra variable in each driver using this function.
> >>
> >> Instead of passing the cooling device to unregister, pass the policy.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/cpufreq/arm_big_little.c               |  2 +-
> >>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c                      |  2 +-
> >>  drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c                  | 18 ++++++++++--------
> >>  drivers/thermal/imx_thermal.c                  |  4 ++--
> >>  .../thermal/ti-soc-thermal/ti-thermal-common.c |  2 +-
> >>  include/linux/cpu_cooling.h                    |  6 +++---
> >>  6 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> > 
> > Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> 
> Just a side note, does it make sense to have the function called from
> imx_thermal.c and ti-thermal-common.c? Sounds like also a leakage from
> cpufreq to thermal drivers, no?

I am not sure what you are proposing here :)

-- 
viresh

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH 2/6] thermal/drivers/cpu_cooling: Unregister with the policy

[Daniel Lezcano]

On 24/06/2019 09:37, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 24-06-19, 09:30, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> On 24/06/2019 08:03, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>>> On 21-06-19, 15:22, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>>> Currently the function cpufreq_cooling_register() returns a cooling
>>>> device pointer which is used back as a pointer to call the function
>>>> cpufreq_cooling_unregister(). Even if it is correct, it would make
>>>> sense to not leak the structure inside a cpufreq driver and keep the
>>>> code thermal code self-encapsulate. Moreover, that forces to add an
>>>> extra variable in each driver using this function.
>>>>
>>>> Instead of passing the cooling device to unregister, pass the policy.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
>>>> ---
>>>>  drivers/cpufreq/arm_big_little.c               |  2 +-
>>>>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c                      |  2 +-
>>>>  drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c                  | 18 ++++++++++--------
>>>>  drivers/thermal/imx_thermal.c                  |  4 ++--
>>>>  .../thermal/ti-soc-thermal/ti-thermal-common.c |  2 +-
>>>>  include/linux/cpu_cooling.h                    |  6 +++---
>>>>  6 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
>>
>> Just a side note, does it make sense to have the function called from
>> imx_thermal.c and ti-thermal-common.c? Sounds like also a leakage from
>> cpufreq to thermal drivers, no?
> 
> I am not sure what you are proposing here :)

Actually I'm asking your opinion :)

The structure in drivers/thermal/imx_thermal.c

struct imx_thermal_data {
        struct cpufreq_policy *policy; <<<< in the thermal data ?!
	[ ... ]
};

And then:

#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_FREQ
/*
 * Create cooling device in case no #cooling-cells property is available in
 * CPU node
 */
static int imx_thermal_register_legacy_cooling(struct imx_thermal_data
*data)
{
        struct device_node *np;
        int ret;

        data->policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(0);
        if (!data->policy) {
                pr_debug("%s: CPUFreq policy not found\n", __func__);
                return -EPROBE_DEFER;
        }

        np = of_get_cpu_node(data->policy->cpu, NULL);

        if (!np || !of_find_property(np, "#cooling-cells", NULL)) {
                data->cdev = cpufreq_cooling_register(data->policy);
                if (IS_ERR(data->cdev)) {
                        ret = PTR_ERR(data->cdev);
                        cpufreq_cpu_put(data->policy);
                        return ret;
                }
        }

        return 0;
}

[ ... ]

Shouldn't this be move in the drivers/cpufreq/<whatever driver> ?

-- 
 <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH 2/6] thermal/drivers/cpu_cooling: Unregister with the policy

[Viresh Kumar]

On 24-06-19, 09:45, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> Actually I'm asking your opinion :)
> 
> The structure in drivers/thermal/imx_thermal.c
> 
> struct imx_thermal_data {
>         struct cpufreq_policy *policy; <<<< in the thermal data ?!
> 	[ ... ]
> };
> 
> And then:
> 
> #ifdef CONFIG_CPU_FREQ
> /*
>  * Create cooling device in case no #cooling-cells property is available in
>  * CPU node
>  */
> static int imx_thermal_register_legacy_cooling(struct imx_thermal_data
> *data)
> {
>         struct device_node *np;
>         int ret;
> 
>         data->policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(0);
>         if (!data->policy) {
>                 pr_debug("%s: CPUFreq policy not found\n", __func__);
>                 return -EPROBE_DEFER;
>         }
> 
>         np = of_get_cpu_node(data->policy->cpu, NULL);
> 
>         if (!np || !of_find_property(np, "#cooling-cells", NULL)) {
>                 data->cdev = cpufreq_cooling_register(data->policy);
>                 if (IS_ERR(data->cdev)) {
>                         ret = PTR_ERR(data->cdev);
>                         cpufreq_cpu_put(data->policy);
>                         return ret;
>                 }
>         }
> 
>         return 0;
> }
> 
> [ ... ]
> 
> Shouldn't this be move in the drivers/cpufreq/<whatever driver> ?

Sure, we have platform specific drivers where this can be moved :)

-- 
viresh

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

[PATCH 5/6] thermal/drivers/imx: Remove cooling device usage

[Daniel Lezcano]

The cpufreq_cooling_unregister() function uses now the policy to
unregister itself. The only purpose of the cooling device pointer is
to unregister the cpu cooling device.

As there is no more need of this pointer, remove it.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
---
 drivers/thermal/imx_thermal.c | 8 ++++----
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/thermal/imx_thermal.c b/drivers/thermal/imx_thermal.c
index 6746f1b73eb7..021c0948b740 100644
--- a/drivers/thermal/imx_thermal.c
+++ b/drivers/thermal/imx_thermal.c
@@ -203,7 +203,6 @@ static struct thermal_soc_data thermal_imx7d_data = {
 struct imx_thermal_data {
 	struct cpufreq_policy *policy;
 	struct thermal_zone_device *tz;
-	struct thermal_cooling_device *cdev;
 	enum thermal_device_mode mode;
 	struct regmap *tempmon;
 	u32 c1, c2; /* See formula in imx_init_calib() */
@@ -656,6 +655,7 @@ MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, of_imx_thermal_match);
 static int imx_thermal_register_legacy_cooling(struct imx_thermal_data *data)
 {
 	struct device_node *np;
+	struct thermal_cooling_device *cdev;
 	int ret;
 
 	data->policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(0);
@@ -667,9 +667,9 @@ static int imx_thermal_register_legacy_cooling(struct imx_thermal_data *data)
 	np = of_get_cpu_node(data->policy->cpu, NULL);
 
 	if (!np || !of_find_property(np, "#cooling-cells", NULL)) {
-		data->cdev = cpufreq_cooling_register(data->policy);
-		if (IS_ERR(data->cdev)) {
-			ret = PTR_ERR(data->cdev);
+		cdev = cpufreq_cooling_register(data->policy);
+		if (IS_ERR(cdev)) {
+			ret = PTR_ERR(cdev);
 			cpufreq_cpu_put(data->policy);
 			return ret;
 		}
-- 
2.17.1


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH 5/6] thermal/drivers/imx: Remove cooling device usage

[Viresh Kumar]

On 21-06-19, 15:23, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> The cpufreq_cooling_unregister() function uses now the policy to
> unregister itself. The only purpose of the cooling device pointer is
> to unregister the cpu cooling device.
> 
> As there is no more need of this pointer, remove it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
> ---
>  drivers/thermal/imx_thermal.c | 8 ++++----
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/thermal/imx_thermal.c b/drivers/thermal/imx_thermal.c
> index 6746f1b73eb7..021c0948b740 100644
> --- a/drivers/thermal/imx_thermal.c
> +++ b/drivers/thermal/imx_thermal.c
> @@ -203,7 +203,6 @@ static struct thermal_soc_data thermal_imx7d_data = {
>  struct imx_thermal_data {
>  	struct cpufreq_policy *policy;
>  	struct thermal_zone_device *tz;
> -	struct thermal_cooling_device *cdev;
>  	enum thermal_device_mode mode;
>  	struct regmap *tempmon;
>  	u32 c1, c2; /* See formula in imx_init_calib() */
> @@ -656,6 +655,7 @@ MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, of_imx_thermal_match);
>  static int imx_thermal_register_legacy_cooling(struct imx_thermal_data *data)
>  {
>  	struct device_node *np;
> +	struct thermal_cooling_device *cdev;
>  	int ret;
>  
>  	data->policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(0);
> @@ -667,9 +667,9 @@ static int imx_thermal_register_legacy_cooling(struct imx_thermal_data *data)
>  	np = of_get_cpu_node(data->policy->cpu, NULL);
>  
>  	if (!np || !of_find_property(np, "#cooling-cells", NULL)) {
> -		data->cdev = cpufreq_cooling_register(data->policy);
> -		if (IS_ERR(data->cdev)) {
> -			ret = PTR_ERR(data->cdev);
> +		cdev = cpufreq_cooling_register(data->policy);
> +		if (IS_ERR(cdev)) {
> +			ret = PTR_ERR(cdev);
>  			cpufreq_cpu_put(data->policy);
>  			return ret;
>  		}

This too..

Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>

-- 
viresh

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel