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=-7.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_PASS 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 22B3AC169C4 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2019 05:46:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB32320989 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2019 05:46:24 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linaro.org header.i=@linaro.org header.b="Mv6yoaXc" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726276AbfA2FqX (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jan 2019 00:46:23 -0500 Received: from mail-qt1-f193.google.com ([209.85.160.193]:40316 "EHLO mail-qt1-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725497AbfA2FqW (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jan 2019 00:46:22 -0500 Received: by mail-qt1-f193.google.com with SMTP id k12so21004921qtf.7 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2019 21:46:22 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=bSQeS3OXHYnGtW1DMMGaDY9H9lWAyOYI7/V2LTUdWjs=; b=Mv6yoaXcXkdtzMAkc4Z/NDQZo8yIylpgneWz7dbLF/cCtvS5HGfJqJO5VIeCHXwj8R civNrigONbuTrMngLj8vDhBUe3nd7z888Lgcb7JelXDhg3E0gc69/fO9n7oM8N4IXEf9 yJtpVcB2ccWk4KMjp8Vrm8+tbQp4znlqXp2Jw= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=bSQeS3OXHYnGtW1DMMGaDY9H9lWAyOYI7/V2LTUdWjs=; b=tTaLNsF3TKKgZn5D572vMAeAp33UYXIo1edQoQtAdgo2lZM5/5sOa5etgWq9NQJEsQ LaQIUpmG9ruSB4bRUMWKBbkstLGtexmFcS/ZzN7e1wn5CRRnzMZjQI1lusuPsVUMEmWJ 5nHe8Tv8wAjQooPnx+h8ZUBoFvX8Kh3TesFgYAZeKjtDobYLvCLOLw+7+nFKC1qAumus gN+Ia5ezv1phXk01RE4H/CQ3/1nA/rFtDoLnnUJxFBHriUgNFaA8yHrIFF4En7ZQjVjg MRqxuEYLE30i/S+ABHPs5q3ev1HDc7ulI8SNlzoKkfIFPBdOM3hSh4IhiAVCO/1qUYoU B9kQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukeqWP6kP0m1CgQ9arZ4PeeXP1DF4ou+gciN7kcpYywZf/EvPnPa Zn4iH8fU+qNZA9Xxztl3iOwUCP/f0qIjR2nwjQVtQA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN41k854mma57ysOQpWfQV6EHg1Cl9/4B4XAxKufsPfwWCFLqar1PuyohCIrP6MRYfSgIWO3Uwbc+jN/VtjV36s= X-Received: by 2002:ac8:6b18:: with SMTP id w24mr24507932qts.144.1548740781438; Mon, 28 Jan 2019 21:46:21 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <6077cb33d7e078bb0e85776bad99fdb476f16d0c.1548737236.git.amit.kucheria@linaro.org> <20190129053618.laa6nscfvlmhhkb5@vireshk-i7> In-Reply-To: <20190129053618.laa6nscfvlmhhkb5@vireshk-i7> From: Amit Kucheria Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 11:16:10 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/9] cpufreq: Auto-register the driver as a thermal cooling device if asked To: Viresh Kumar Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Sudeep Holla , Linux PM list Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 11:06 AM Viresh Kumar wrote: > > On 29-01-19, 10:25, Amit Kucheria wrote: > > All cpufreq drivers do similar things to register as a cooling device. > > Provide a cpufreq driver flag so drivers can just ask the cpufreq core > > to register the cooling device on their behalf. This allows us to get > > rid of duplicated code in the drivers. > > > > In order to allow this, we add a struct thermal_cooling_device pointer > > to struct cpufreq_policy so that drivers don't need to store it in a > > private data structure. > > > > Suggested-by: Stephen Boyd > > Suggested-by: Viresh Kumar > > Signed-off-by: Amit Kucheria > > Reviewed-by: Matthias Kaehlcke > > Tested-by: Matthias Kaehlcke > > Acked-by: Viresh Kumar > > --- > > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 13 +++++++++++++ > > include/linux/cpufreq.h | 9 +++++++++ > > 2 files changed, 22 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > > index e35a886e00bc..0f9b50d3ee91 100644 > > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > > @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ > > > > #include > > #include > > +#include > > #include > > #include > > #include > > @@ -1318,6 +1319,11 @@ static int cpufreq_online(unsigned int cpu) > > if (cpufreq_driver->ready) > > cpufreq_driver->ready(policy); > > > > +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CPU_THERMAL) > > + if (cpufreq_driver->flags & CPUFREQ_IS_COOLING_DEV) > > + policy->cdev = of_cpufreq_cooling_register(policy); > > +#endif > > I am not sure if Rafael wanted it this way but maybe something like this: > > if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CPU_THERMAL) && > cpufreq_driver->flags & CPUFREQ_IS_COOLING_DEV)) > policy->cdev = of_cpufreq_cooling_register(policy); > > We never wanted ifdef hackery to be in there :) OK, that makes more sense. Should I just send out a fixup patch or the entire series?