Re: [PATCH v9 15/15] OPTIONAL: cpufreq: dt: Register an Energy Model

[Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>]

On 19-11-18, 14:18, Quentin Perret wrote:
>  static int cpufreq_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>  {
> +	struct em_data_callback em_cb = EM_DATA_CB(of_est_power);
>  	struct cpufreq_frequency_table *freq_table;
>  	struct opp_table *opp_table = NULL;
>  	struct private_data *priv;
> @@ -160,7 +203,7 @@ static int cpufreq_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>  	unsigned int transition_latency;
>  	bool fallback = false;
>  	const char *name;
> -	int ret;
> +	int ret, nr_opp;
>  
>  	cpu_dev = get_cpu_device(policy->cpu);
>  	if (!cpu_dev) {
> @@ -237,6 +280,7 @@ static int cpufreq_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>  		ret = -EPROBE_DEFER;
>  		goto out_free_opp;
>  	}
> +	nr_opp = ret;
>  
>  	if (fallback) {
>  		cpumask_setall(policy->cpus);
> @@ -280,6 +324,8 @@ static int cpufreq_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>  	policy->cpuinfo.transition_latency = transition_latency;
>  	policy->dvfs_possible_from_any_cpu = true;
>  
> +	em_register_perf_domain(policy->cpus, nr_opp, &em_cb);
> +
>  	return 0;
>  
>  out_free_cpufreq_table:

I haven't gone deep into the series, but why don't we need something
like em_unregister_perf_domain()? That can be used if the cpufreq
driver goes away. Else loading/unloading/loading the cpufreq driver
may register the perf-domain callback again.

-- 
viresh