Re: [PATCH v7 03/15] PM / EM: update callback structure and add device pointer

From: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
To: Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-imx@nxp.com,
	Dietmar.Eggemann@arm.com, cw00.choi@samsung.com,
	b.zolnierkie@samsung.com, rjw@rjwysocki.net,
	sudeep.holla@arm.com, viresh.kumar@linaro.org, nm@ti.com,
	sboyd@kernel.org, rui.zhang@intel.com,
	amit.kucheria@verdurent.com, daniel.lezcano@linaro.org,
	mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
	vincent.guittot@linaro.org, rostedt@goodmis.org,
	bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de, shawnguo@kernel.org,
	s.hauer@pengutronix.de, festevam@gmail.com,
	kernel@pengutronix.de, khilman@kernel.org, agross@kernel.org,
	bjorn.andersson@linaro.org, robh@kernel.org,
	matthias.bgg@gmail.com, steven.price@arm.com,
	tomeu.vizoso@collabora.com, alyssa.rosenzweig@collabora.com,
	airlied@linux.ie, daniel@ffwll.ch, liviu.dudau@arm.com,
	lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com, patrick.bellasi@matbug.net,
	orjan.eide@arm.com, rdunlap@infradead.org, mka@chromium.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 03/15] PM / EM: update callback structure and add device pointer
Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 12:11:06 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <a2c20b82-58e3-a2ef-2d8d-edbaf05277ec@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200511115722.GA13741@google.com>

Hi Quentin,

On 5/11/20 12:57 PM, Quentin Perret wrote:
> On Monday 11 May 2020 at 12:19:00 (+0100), Lukasz Luba wrote:
>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/scmi-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/scmi-cpufreq.c
>> index 61623e2ff149..11ee24e06d12 100644
>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/scmi-cpufreq.c
>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/scmi-cpufreq.c
>> @@ -103,17 +103,12 @@ scmi_get_sharing_cpus(struct device *cpu_dev, struct cpumask *cpumask)
>>   }
>>   
>>   static int __maybe_unused
>> -scmi_get_cpu_power(unsigned long *power, unsigned long *KHz, int cpu)
>> +scmi_get_cpu_power(unsigned long *power, unsigned long *KHz,
>> +		   struct device *cpu_dev)
>>   {
>> -	struct device *cpu_dev = get_cpu_device(cpu);
>>   	unsigned long Hz;
>>   	int ret, domain;
>>   
>> -	if (!cpu_dev) {
>> -		pr_err("failed to get cpu%d device\n", cpu);
>> -		return -ENODEV;
>> -	}
>> -
>>   	domain = handle->perf_ops->device_domain_id(cpu_dev);
>>   	if (domain < 0)
>>   		return domain;
>> @@ -200,7 +195,7 @@ static int scmi_cpufreq_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>>   
>>   	policy->fast_switch_possible = true;
>>   
>> -	em_register_perf_domain(policy->cpus, nr_opp, &em_cb);
> 
> So this one has no users after this patch right? I suppose you could
> squash patch 05 in this one. But no big deal.

Yes, it was tricky to me to decide the splits suggested by Daniel and
this is the example. I had to introduce the em_dev_register_perf_domain
and make clients of it before I remove the old em_register_perf_domain
completely. I agree it could also go with the patch 5, but it does not
harm to be here.

> 
> Acked-by: Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>

Thank you for this ACKs and the earlier.

Regards,
Lukasz

> 
>> +	em_dev_register_perf_domain(cpu_dev, nr_opp, &em_cb, policy->cpus);
>>   
>>   	return 0;