[PATCH v3 0/6] Initialise thermal framework and cpufreq earlier during boot

[PATCH v3 0/6] Initialise thermal framework and cpufreq earlier during boot

[Amit Kucheria]

Changes since v2:
- Missed one patch when posting v2. Respinning.

Changes since v1:
- Completely get rid of netlink support in the thermal framework.
- This changes the early init patch to a single line - change to
  core_initcall. Changed authorship of patch since it is nothing like the
  original. Lina, let me know if you feel otherwise.
- I've tested to make sure that the qcom-cpufreq-hw driver continues to
  work correctly as a module so this won't impact Android's GKI plans.
- Collected Acks

Device boot needs to be as fast as possible while keeping under the thermal
envelope. Now that thermal framework is built-in to the kernel, we can
initialize it earlier to enable thermal mitigation during boot.

We also need the cpufreq HW drivers to be initialised earlier to act as the
cooling devices. This series only converts over the qcom-hw driver to
initialize earlier but can be extended to other platforms as well.

Amit Kucheria (6):
  thermal: Remove netlink support
  thermal: Initialize thermal subsystem earlier
  cpufreq: Initialise the governors in core_initcall
  cpufreq: Initialize cpufreq-dt driver earlier
  clk: qcom: Initialise clock drivers earlier
  cpufreq: qcom-hw: Move driver initialisation earlier

 .../driver-api/thermal/sysfs-api.rst          |  26 +----
 drivers/clk/qcom/clk-rpmh.c                   |   2 +-
 drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-qcs404.c                 |   2 +-
 drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-sdm845.c                 |   2 +-
 drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt-platdev.c          |   2 +-
 drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c        |   2 +-
 drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c            |   2 +-
 drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_performance.c         |   2 +-
 drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_powersave.c           |   2 +-
 drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_userspace.c           |   2 +-
 drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c             |   2 +-
 drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c                | 110 +-----------------
 include/linux/thermal.h                       |  11 --
 13 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 145 deletions(-)

-- 
2.17.1

[PATCH v3 5/6] clk: qcom: Initialise clock drivers earlier

[Amit Kucheria]

Initialise the clock drivers on sdm845 and qcs404 in core_initcall so we
can have earlier access to cpufreq during booting.

Signed-off-by: Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@linaro.org>
---
 drivers/clk/qcom/clk-rpmh.c   | 2 +-
 drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-qcs404.c | 2 +-
 drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-sdm845.c | 2 +-
 3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/clk/qcom/clk-rpmh.c b/drivers/clk/qcom/clk-rpmh.c
index 96a36f6ff667..20d4258f125b 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/qcom/clk-rpmh.c
+++ b/drivers/clk/qcom/clk-rpmh.c
@@ -487,7 +487,7 @@ static int __init clk_rpmh_init(void)
 {
 	return platform_driver_register(&clk_rpmh_driver);
 }
-subsys_initcall(clk_rpmh_init);
+core_initcall(clk_rpmh_init);
 
 static void __exit clk_rpmh_exit(void)
 {
diff --git a/drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-qcs404.c b/drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-qcs404.c
index bd32212f37e6..9b0c4ce2ef4e 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-qcs404.c
+++ b/drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-qcs404.c
@@ -2855,7 +2855,7 @@ static int __init gcc_qcs404_init(void)
 {
 	return platform_driver_register(&gcc_qcs404_driver);
 }
-subsys_initcall(gcc_qcs404_init);
+core_initcall(gcc_qcs404_init);
 
 static void __exit gcc_qcs404_exit(void)
 {
diff --git a/drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-sdm845.c b/drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-sdm845.c
index 95be125c3bdd..49dcff1af2db 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-sdm845.c
+++ b/drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-sdm845.c
@@ -3628,7 +3628,7 @@ static int __init gcc_sdm845_init(void)
 {
 	return platform_driver_register(&gcc_sdm845_driver);
 }
-subsys_initcall(gcc_sdm845_init);
+core_initcall(gcc_sdm845_init);
 
 static void __exit gcc_sdm845_exit(void)
 {
-- 
2.17.1

Re: [PATCH v3 5/6] clk: qcom: Initialise clock drivers earlier

[Stephen Boyd]

Quoting Amit Kucheria (2019-10-17 05:27:37)
> Initialise the clock drivers on sdm845 and qcs404 in core_initcall so we
> can have earlier access to cpufreq during booting.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@linaro.org>
> ---

Acked-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>

Makes me sad again.

Re: [PATCH v3 5/6] clk: qcom: Initialise clock drivers earlier

[Viresh Kumar]

On 17-10-19, 10:47, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Amit Kucheria (2019-10-17 05:27:37)
> > Initialise the clock drivers on sdm845 and qcs404 in core_initcall so we
> > can have earlier access to cpufreq during booting.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@linaro.org>
> > ---
> 
> Acked-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>
> 
> Makes me sad again.

I am wondering why it makes you sad ? :)

-- 
viresh

Re: [PATCH v3 5/6] clk: qcom: Initialise clock drivers earlier

[Sudeep Holla]

On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 10:22:24AM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Viresh Kumar (2019-10-17 23:03:45)
> > On 17-10-19, 10:47, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > > Quoting Amit Kucheria (2019-10-17 05:27:37)
> > > > Initialise the clock drivers on sdm845 and qcs404 in core_initcall so we
> > > > can have earlier access to cpufreq during booting.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@linaro.org>
> > > > ---
> > >
> > > Acked-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>
> > >
> > > Makes me sad again.
> >
> > I am wondering why it makes you sad ? :)
> >
>
> We're playing games with initcall levels :(
>

+1, which will come back and bite us hard soon :)

--
Regards,
Sudeep

Re: [PATCH v3 5/6] clk: qcom: Initialise clock drivers earlier

[Viresh Kumar]

On 29-10-19, 09:06, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 10:22:24AM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > Quoting Viresh Kumar (2019-10-17 23:03:45)
> > > On 17-10-19, 10:47, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > > > Quoting Amit Kucheria (2019-10-17 05:27:37)
> > > > > Initialise the clock drivers on sdm845 and qcs404 in core_initcall so we
> > > > > can have earlier access to cpufreq during booting.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@linaro.org>
> > > > > ---
> > > >
> > > > Acked-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>
> > > >
> > > > Makes me sad again.
> > >
> > > I am wondering why it makes you sad ? :)
> > >
> >
> > We're playing games with initcall levels :(
> >
> 
> +1, which will come back and bite us hard soon :)

:)

I don't like reordering init calls as well, but only when they are
used to avoid issues and probe things in a particular order. While the
only thing we are doing here is to get things to probe earlier, which
isn't wrong IMO :)

Lets see if it bites us anytime soon, I would be surprised really :)

-- 
viresh