Re: [PATCH v1 5/7] cpufreq: qcom-hw: Register as a cpufreq cooling device

["Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>]

On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 7:12 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On 10-01-19, 05:30, Amit Kucheria wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@linaro.org>
> > ---
> >  drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c | 5 +++++
> >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c b/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c
> > index 649dddd72749..1c01311e5927 100644
> > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c
> > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c
> > @@ -5,6 +5,7 @@
> >
> >  #include <linux/bitfield.h>
> >  #include <linux/cpufreq.h>
> > +#include <linux/cpu_cooling.h>
> >  #include <linux/init.h>
> >  #include <linux/kernel.h>
> >  #include <linux/module.h>
> > @@ -216,7 +217,10 @@ static int qcom_cpufreq_hw_cpu_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> >  static int qcom_cpufreq_hw_cpu_exit(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> >  {
> >       void __iomem *base = policy->driver_data - REG_PERF_STATE;
> > +     struct thermal_cooling_device *cdev = policy->cooldev;
> >
> > +     if (cdev)
> > +             cpufreq_cooling_unregister(cdev);
> >       kfree(policy->freq_table);
> >       devm_iounmap(&global_pdev->dev, base);
> >
> > @@ -238,6 +242,7 @@ static struct cpufreq_driver cpufreq_qcom_hw_driver = {
> >       .init           = qcom_cpufreq_hw_cpu_init,
> >       .exit           = qcom_cpufreq_hw_cpu_exit,
> >       .fast_switch    = qcom_cpufreq_hw_fast_switch,
> > +     .ready          = generic_cpufreq_ready,
> >       .name           = "qcom-cpufreq-hw",
> >       .attr           = qcom_cpufreq_hw_attr,
> >  };
>
> I liked the idea of reducing code duplication, but not much the
> implementation. All we were able to get rid of was a call to
> of_cpufreq_cooling_register() and nothing else. Is it worth it ?
>
> Maybe we can add another flag in cpufreq.h:
>
> #define CPUFREQ_AUTO_REGISTER_COOLING_DEV (1 << 7)
>
> and let the core do it all automatically by itself, that will get rid
> of code duplication actually.
>
> @Rafael: What do you say ?

Getting rid of code duplication is good, let's do that.