* [PATCH] PM / devfreq: Init user limits from OPP limits, not viceversa
@ 2018-05-16 22:57 ` Matthias Kaehlcke
2018-05-17 1:07 ` Chanwoo Choi
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Matthias Kaehlcke @ 2018-05-16 22:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: MyungJoo Ham, Kyungmin Park, Chanwoo Choi
Cc: linux-pm, linux-kernel, Brian Norris, Douglas Anderson,
Matthias Kaehlcke
Commit ab8f58ad72c4 ("PM / devfreq: Set min/max_freq when adding
the devfreq device") introduced the initialization of the user
limits min/max_freq from the lowest/highest available OPPs. Later
commit f1d981eaecf8 ("PM / devfreq: Use the available min/max
frequency") added scaling_min/max_freq, which actually represent
the frequencies of the lowest/highest available OPP. scaling_min/
max_freq are initialized with the values from min/max_freq, which
is totally correct in the context, but a bit awkward to read.
Swap the initialization and assign scaling_min/max_freq with the
OPP freqs and then the user limts min/max_freq with scaling_min/
max_freq.
Needless to say that this change is a NOP, intended to improve
readability.
Signed-off-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org>
---
Additional context: I'm considering to introduce the concept of
a devfreq policy, which would probably move min/max_freq inside
of a struct policy, this would make the initialization even
more awkward to read. If this moves forward I might also propose
to rename scaling_min/max_freq to something like min/max_opp_freq
to avoid confusion with the frequencies in the policy (cpufreq uses
scaling_min/max_freq for the sysfs attributes of the policy
limits).
drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c | 12 ++++++------
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c b/drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c
index fe2af6aa88fc..0057ef5b0a98 100644
--- a/drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c
+++ b/drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c
@@ -604,21 +604,21 @@ struct devfreq *devfreq_add_device(struct device *dev,
mutex_lock(&devfreq->lock);
}
- devfreq->min_freq = find_available_min_freq(devfreq);
- if (!devfreq->min_freq) {
+ devfreq->scaling_min_freq = find_available_min_freq(devfreq);
+ if (!devfreq->scaling_min_freq) {
mutex_unlock(&devfreq->lock);
err = -EINVAL;
goto err_dev;
}
- devfreq->scaling_min_freq = devfreq->min_freq;
+ devfreq->min_freq = devfreq->scaling_min_freq;
- devfreq->max_freq = find_available_max_freq(devfreq);
- if (!devfreq->max_freq) {
+ devfreq->scaling_max_freq = find_available_max_freq(devfreq);
+ if (!devfreq->scaling_max_freq) {
mutex_unlock(&devfreq->lock);
err = -EINVAL;
goto err_dev;
}
- devfreq->scaling_max_freq = devfreq->max_freq;
+ devfreq->max_freq = devfreq->scaling_max_freq;
dev_set_name(&devfreq->dev, "devfreq%d",
atomic_inc_return(&devfreq_no));
--
2.17.0.441.gb46fe60e1d-goog
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] PM / devfreq: Init user limits from OPP limits, not viceversa
2018-05-16 22:57 ` [PATCH] PM / devfreq: Init user limits from OPP limits, not viceversa Matthias Kaehlcke
@ 2018-05-17 1:07 ` Chanwoo Choi
2018-05-17 16:35 ` Matthias Kaehlcke
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Chanwoo Choi @ 2018-05-17 1:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Matthias Kaehlcke, MyungJoo Ham, Kyungmin Park
Cc: linux-pm, linux-kernel, Brian Norris, Douglas Anderson
Hi,
On 2018년 05월 17일 07:57, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> Commit ab8f58ad72c4 ("PM / devfreq: Set min/max_freq when adding
> the devfreq device") introduced the initialization of the user
> limits min/max_freq from the lowest/highest available OPPs. Later
> commit f1d981eaecf8 ("PM / devfreq: Use the available min/max
> frequency") added scaling_min/max_freq, which actually represent
> the frequencies of the lowest/highest available OPP. scaling_min/
> max_freq are initialized with the values from min/max_freq, which
> is totally correct in the context, but a bit awkward to read.
>
> Swap the initialization and assign scaling_min/max_freq with the
> OPP freqs and then the user limts min/max_freq with scaling_min/
> max_freq.
>
> Needless to say that this change is a NOP, intended to improve
> readability.
>
> Signed-off-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org>
> ---
> Additional context: I'm considering to introduce the concept of
> a devfreq policy, which would probably move min/max_freq inside
> of a struct policy, this would make the initialization even
> more awkward to read. If this moves forward I might also propose
> to rename scaling_min/max_freq to something like min/max_opp_freq
> to avoid confusion with the frequencies in the policy (cpufreq uses
> scaling_min/max_freq for the sysfs attributes of the policy
> limits).
>
> drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c | 12 ++++++------
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c b/drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c
> index fe2af6aa88fc..0057ef5b0a98 100644
> --- a/drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c
> @@ -604,21 +604,21 @@ struct devfreq *devfreq_add_device(struct device *dev,
> mutex_lock(&devfreq->lock);
> }
>
> - devfreq->min_freq = find_available_min_freq(devfreq);
> - if (!devfreq->min_freq) {
> + devfreq->scaling_min_freq = find_available_min_freq(devfreq);
> + if (!devfreq->scaling_min_freq) {
> mutex_unlock(&devfreq->lock);
> err = -EINVAL;
> goto err_dev;
> }
> - devfreq->scaling_min_freq = devfreq->min_freq;
> + devfreq->min_freq = devfreq->scaling_min_freq;
>
> - devfreq->max_freq = find_available_max_freq(devfreq);
> - if (!devfreq->max_freq) {
> + devfreq->scaling_max_freq = find_available_max_freq(devfreq);
> + if (!devfreq->scaling_max_freq) {
> mutex_unlock(&devfreq->lock);
> err = -EINVAL;
> goto err_dev;
> }
> - devfreq->scaling_max_freq = devfreq->max_freq;
> + devfreq->max_freq = devfreq->scaling_max_freq;
>
> dev_set_name(&devfreq->dev, "devfreq%d",
> atomic_inc_return(&devfreq_no));
>
This patch just clean-up codes related to min/max_freq and scaling_min/max_freq.
It seems be good.
Reviewed-by: Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@samsung.com>
But, I don't want to change the name from 'scaling_min/max_freq'
to 'min/max_opp_freq'. You can check the meaning of variables
in comment of struct devfreq.
--
Best Regards,
Chanwoo Choi
Samsung Electronics
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] PM / devfreq: Init user limits from OPP limits, not viceversa
2018-05-17 1:07 ` Chanwoo Choi
@ 2018-05-17 16:35 ` Matthias Kaehlcke
2018-05-17 23:20 ` Chanwoo Choi
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Matthias Kaehlcke @ 2018-05-17 16:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chanwoo Choi
Cc: MyungJoo Ham, Kyungmin Park, linux-pm, linux-kernel,
Brian Norris, Douglas Anderson
On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 10:07:56AM +0900, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2018년 05월 17일 07:57, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> > Commit ab8f58ad72c4 ("PM / devfreq: Set min/max_freq when adding
> > the devfreq device") introduced the initialization of the user
> > limits min/max_freq from the lowest/highest available OPPs. Later
> > commit f1d981eaecf8 ("PM / devfreq: Use the available min/max
> > frequency") added scaling_min/max_freq, which actually represent
> > the frequencies of the lowest/highest available OPP. scaling_min/
> > max_freq are initialized with the values from min/max_freq, which
> > is totally correct in the context, but a bit awkward to read.
> >
> > Swap the initialization and assign scaling_min/max_freq with the
> > OPP freqs and then the user limts min/max_freq with scaling_min/
> > max_freq.
> >
> > Needless to say that this change is a NOP, intended to improve
> > readability.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org>
> > ---
> > Additional context: I'm considering to introduce the concept of
> > a devfreq policy, which would probably move min/max_freq inside
> > of a struct policy, this would make the initialization even
> > more awkward to read. If this moves forward I might also propose
> > to rename scaling_min/max_freq to something like min/max_opp_freq
> > to avoid confusion with the frequencies in the policy (cpufreq uses
> > scaling_min/max_freq for the sysfs attributes of the policy
> > limits).
> >
> > drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c | 12 ++++++------
> > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c b/drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c
> > index fe2af6aa88fc..0057ef5b0a98 100644
> > --- a/drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c
> > +++ b/drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c
> > @@ -604,21 +604,21 @@ struct devfreq *devfreq_add_device(struct device *dev,
> > mutex_lock(&devfreq->lock);
> > }
> >
> > - devfreq->min_freq = find_available_min_freq(devfreq);
> > - if (!devfreq->min_freq) {
> > + devfreq->scaling_min_freq = find_available_min_freq(devfreq);
> > + if (!devfreq->scaling_min_freq) {
> > mutex_unlock(&devfreq->lock);
> > err = -EINVAL;
> > goto err_dev;
> > }
> > - devfreq->scaling_min_freq = devfreq->min_freq;
> > + devfreq->min_freq = devfreq->scaling_min_freq;
> >
> > - devfreq->max_freq = find_available_max_freq(devfreq);
> > - if (!devfreq->max_freq) {
> > + devfreq->scaling_max_freq = find_available_max_freq(devfreq);
> > + if (!devfreq->scaling_max_freq) {
> > mutex_unlock(&devfreq->lock);
> > err = -EINVAL;
> > goto err_dev;
> > }
> > - devfreq->scaling_max_freq = devfreq->max_freq;
> > + devfreq->max_freq = devfreq->scaling_max_freq;
> >
> > dev_set_name(&devfreq->dev, "devfreq%d",
> > atomic_inc_return(&devfreq_no));
> >
>
> This patch just clean-up codes related to min/max_freq and scaling_min/max_freq.
> It seems be good.
>
> Reviewed-by: Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@samsung.com>
Thanks for the review!
> But, I don't want to change the name from 'scaling_min/max_freq'
> to 'min/max_opp_freq'.
It's obviously up to you in the end, and I won't insist if you are
convinced that scaling_min/max_freq is the better name (I suggest to
make this judgement after a new revision of the policy patch [1],
which likely will introduce another pair of frequencies, and naming
can help to clearly differentiate between them).
> You can check the meaning of variables in comment of struct devfreq.
This is true, but ideally code should be as self-explaining as
possible (without becoming too verbose ;-), and variable/function
names are a key element for that.
Best regards
Matthias
[1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10401999/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] PM / devfreq: Init user limits from OPP limits, not viceversa
2018-05-17 16:35 ` Matthias Kaehlcke
@ 2018-05-17 23:20 ` Chanwoo Choi
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Chanwoo Choi @ 2018-05-17 23:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Matthias Kaehlcke
Cc: MyungJoo Ham, Kyungmin Park, linux-pm, linux-kernel,
Brian Norris, Douglas Anderson
Hi,
On 2018년 05월 18일 01:35, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 10:07:56AM +0900, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 2018년 05월 17일 07:57, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
>>> Commit ab8f58ad72c4 ("PM / devfreq: Set min/max_freq when adding
>>> the devfreq device") introduced the initialization of the user
>>> limits min/max_freq from the lowest/highest available OPPs. Later
>>> commit f1d981eaecf8 ("PM / devfreq: Use the available min/max
>>> frequency") added scaling_min/max_freq, which actually represent
>>> the frequencies of the lowest/highest available OPP. scaling_min/
>>> max_freq are initialized with the values from min/max_freq, which
>>> is totally correct in the context, but a bit awkward to read.
>>>
>>> Swap the initialization and assign scaling_min/max_freq with the
>>> OPP freqs and then the user limts min/max_freq with scaling_min/
>>> max_freq.
>>>
>>> Needless to say that this change is a NOP, intended to improve
>>> readability.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org>
>>> ---
>>> Additional context: I'm considering to introduce the concept of
>>> a devfreq policy, which would probably move min/max_freq inside
>>> of a struct policy, this would make the initialization even
>>> more awkward to read. If this moves forward I might also propose
>>> to rename scaling_min/max_freq to something like min/max_opp_freq
>>> to avoid confusion with the frequencies in the policy (cpufreq uses
>>> scaling_min/max_freq for the sysfs attributes of the policy
>>> limits).
>>>
>>> drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c | 12 ++++++------
>>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c b/drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c
>>> index fe2af6aa88fc..0057ef5b0a98 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c
>>> @@ -604,21 +604,21 @@ struct devfreq *devfreq_add_device(struct device *dev,
>>> mutex_lock(&devfreq->lock);
>>> }
>>>
>>> - devfreq->min_freq = find_available_min_freq(devfreq);
>>> - if (!devfreq->min_freq) {
>>> + devfreq->scaling_min_freq = find_available_min_freq(devfreq);
>>> + if (!devfreq->scaling_min_freq) {
>>> mutex_unlock(&devfreq->lock);
>>> err = -EINVAL;
>>> goto err_dev;
>>> }
>>> - devfreq->scaling_min_freq = devfreq->min_freq;
>>> + devfreq->min_freq = devfreq->scaling_min_freq;
>>>
>>> - devfreq->max_freq = find_available_max_freq(devfreq);
>>> - if (!devfreq->max_freq) {
>>> + devfreq->scaling_max_freq = find_available_max_freq(devfreq);
>>> + if (!devfreq->scaling_max_freq) {
>>> mutex_unlock(&devfreq->lock);
>>> err = -EINVAL;
>>> goto err_dev;
>>> }
>>> - devfreq->scaling_max_freq = devfreq->max_freq;
>>> + devfreq->max_freq = devfreq->scaling_max_freq;
>>>
>>> dev_set_name(&devfreq->dev, "devfreq%d",
>>> atomic_inc_return(&devfreq_no));
>>>
>>
>> This patch just clean-up codes related to min/max_freq and scaling_min/max_freq.
>> It seems be good.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@samsung.com>
>
> Thanks for the review!
>
>> But, I don't want to change the name from 'scaling_min/max_freq'
>> to 'min/max_opp_freq'.
>
> It's obviously up to you in the end, and I won't insist if you are
> convinced that scaling_min/max_freq is the better name (I suggest to
> make this judgement after a new revision of the policy patch [1],
> which likely will introduce another pair of frequencies, and naming
> can help to clearly differentiate between them).
>
>> You can check the meaning of variables in comment of struct devfreq.
>
> This is true, but ideally code should be as self-explaining as
> possible (without becoming too verbose ;-), and variable/function
> names are a key element for that.
I don't want to use the framework name for specific variable.
>
> Best regards
>
> Matthias
>
> [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10401999/
>
>
>
--
Best Regards,
Chanwoo Choi
Samsung Electronics
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2018-05-17 23:20 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <CGME20180516225800epcas5p188094c0edfe8a9c3ffd3bfb9e48ce87c@epcas5p1.samsung.com>
2018-05-16 22:57 ` [PATCH] PM / devfreq: Init user limits from OPP limits, not viceversa Matthias Kaehlcke
2018-05-17 1:07 ` Chanwoo Choi
2018-05-17 16:35 ` Matthias Kaehlcke
2018-05-17 23:20 ` Chanwoo Choi
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).