From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1EDAC282D8 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2019 12:27:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE4D42082C for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2019 12:27:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728947AbfBAM1u (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Feb 2019 07:27:50 -0500 Received: from usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:59048 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725807AbfBAM1u (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Feb 2019 07:27:50 -0500 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.72.51.249]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C9BB80D; Fri, 1 Feb 2019 04:27:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from e107155-lin (e107155-lin.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.196.42]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D072B3F59C; Fri, 1 Feb 2019 04:27:47 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2019 12:27:45 +0000 From: Sudeep Holla To: Quentin Perret Cc: viresh.kumar@linaro.org, rjw@rjwysocki.net, nm@ti.com, sboyd@kernel.org, mka@chromium.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] PM / OPP: Introduce a power estimation helper Message-ID: <20190201122745.GE10042@e107155-lin> References: <20190201093101.31869-1-quentin.perret@arm.com> <20190201093101.31869-2-quentin.perret@arm.com> <20190201120453.GC10042@e107155-lin> <20190201120951.lqxy4u7kxfzfmmub@queper01-lin> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190201120951.lqxy4u7kxfzfmmub@queper01-lin> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 12:09:53PM +0000, Quentin Perret wrote: > Hi Sudeep, > > On Friday 01 Feb 2019 at 12:04:53 (+0000), Sudeep Holla wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 09:30:57AM +0000, Quentin Perret wrote: > > > +void dev_pm_opp_of_register_em(struct cpumask *cpus, int nr_opp) > > > +{ > > > + struct em_data_callback em_cb = EM_DATA_CB(_get_cpu_power); > > > + int ret, cpu = cpumask_first(cpus); > > > + struct device *cpu_dev; > > > + struct device_node *np; > > > + u32 cap; > > > + > > > + cpu_dev = get_cpu_device(cpu); > > > + if (!cpu_dev) > > > + return; > > > + > > > + np = of_node_get(cpu_dev->of_node); > > > + if (!np) > > > + return; > > > + Forgot earlier, you can use of_cpu_device_node_get to combine the above 2. > > > > Does it make sense to add the check for OPP count here. You need not pass > > that as parameter. Just makes one less thing to check in new drivers adding > > this support. Thoughts ? > > Yeah Matthias had the same suggestion. I don't mind moving it here TBH. > It's just that some users already do the opp count before calling this > function, so I figured I could as well use that data instead of counting > again. > Indeed, I was under same opinion after seeing in 2 patches and then 3rd made me think why not. Also since you fetch cpu_dev already there, it should be fine. > But yeah, that's one less thing to worry about on the driver side so > I'll move the OPP count in there for v4 and we'll see if people ask me > to move it out to optimize things ;-) > Yes, but I will leave it to Viresh's taste :) -- Regards, Sudeep