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 3EEDFC282C0 for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2019 12:18:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03CB2218D9 for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2019 12:18:34 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linaro.org header.i=@linaro.org header.b="f9J3S2BF" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726347AbfAYMSV (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Jan 2019 07:18:21 -0500 Received: from mail-qt1-f196.google.com ([209.85.160.196]:42095 "EHLO mail-qt1-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726049AbfAYMSU (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Jan 2019 07:18:20 -0500 Received: by mail-qt1-f196.google.com with SMTP id d19so10377884qtq.9 for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2019 04:18:19 -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=vzaFCXWgo3dTEQrWt7ngxsPNftIjpavsByW7Uw5Vi1k=; b=f9J3S2BFjh2Nzq2Shygsvmddpa/wsH9+pkyeiH0YXx6MpQ8ijq5vbS4yDNZG2Sts73 Te/bfl2uO5xLrTmHUOAf5ENRvL7W3alPADjOugj6Z1gWImAya2didHAjZehy1tb5ox2z 5nLBPcw8nvxefpOfIm/WYQHUB1/dTqxyptz6M= 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=vzaFCXWgo3dTEQrWt7ngxsPNftIjpavsByW7Uw5Vi1k=; b=Qq5j+XEo2hft8+DM5ODEA2AgBhyhXcJ3uMjtuIV+x325ZBHbx5EinTDNj6sS9VEiLv TLfrqRARTS/HUNkGlu7UShBxOaJsMLhQsyKfF3g1dEX3DLXZzrzrOSxc2owPjgJP+qwn goTNC1aurjNW5HcAtWYh1vUmEsjX/PiyWFGmni/oGtIvLh0u5sv+2CA1bmWxw9XuM2/d bz2IytwSzjsybx27qj1ePirTYiLB/mXka1HEdziwsETsmrW2f4DggNuG/jikym7CJoxj pJev5VvW7yeePbKZqqE2T1f7ZshBCzz/LBE4ezLJ/n+IvxgX8x/2+i64BuO7RFgqEU2q jL7g== X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukeBaEmsaMJoDazLKWAJ2AJTywjKxXcIJVVMSAAGeXUq2AyC1mSN +YwuG1pgWZd6Uin6INftfxUoITCb6TZSorWW5oeYiQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN52I6pgMY1Kgs6UVFvxCqDPSsRZ8tWdiTVNxcxxEsKJaUF4IrOFvxSYoh0Wmhns3mVMWwPhzCWezCwC2VIJoKY= X-Received: by 2002:aed:3861:: with SMTP id j88mr10946617qte.31.1548418699099; Fri, 25 Jan 2019 04:18:19 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <73e091e2d56d9fa6eb94feaed9fc2be30bf6da20.1548398851.git.amit.kucheria@linaro.org> <20190125103152.7svjfmowgigznipm@vireshk-i7> In-Reply-To: <20190125103152.7svjfmowgigznipm@vireshk-i7> From: Amit Kucheria Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2019 17:48:08 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 2/9] cpufreq: Auto-register the driver as a thermal cooling device if asked To: Viresh Kumar Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-arm-msm , Eduardo Valentin , Stephen Boyd , Doug Anderson , Matthias Kaehlcke , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , "open list:CPU FREQUENCY SCALING FRAMEWORK" 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 Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 4:01 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: > > On 25-01-19, 12:32, 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 > > --- > > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 6 ++++++ > > include/linux/cpufreq.h | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++ > > 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > > index e35a886e00bc..cf1be057caf4 100644 > > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > > @@ -1318,6 +1318,9 @@ static int cpufreq_online(unsigned int cpu) > > if (cpufreq_driver->ready) > > cpufreq_driver->ready(policy); > > > > + if (cpufreq_driver->flags & CPUFREQ_AUTO_REGISTER_COOLING_DEV) > > + register_cooling_device(policy); > > + > > pr_debug("initialization complete\n"); > > > > return 0; > > @@ -1405,6 +1408,9 @@ static int cpufreq_offline(unsigned int cpu) > > goto unlock; > > } > > > > + if (cpufreq_driver->flags & CPUFREQ_AUTO_REGISTER_COOLING_DEV) > > + unregister_cooling_device(policy); > > + > > if (cpufreq_driver->stop_cpu) > > cpufreq_driver->stop_cpu(policy); > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/cpufreq.h b/include/linux/cpufreq.h > > index bd7fbd6a4478..c7eb59b8ce94 100644 > > --- a/include/linux/cpufreq.h > > +++ b/include/linux/cpufreq.h > > @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@ > > > > #include > > #include > > +#include > > #include > > #include > > #include > > @@ -151,6 +152,9 @@ struct cpufreq_policy { > > > > /* For cpufreq driver's internal use */ > > void *driver_data; > > + > > + /* Pointer to the cooling device if used for thermal mitigation */ > > + struct thermal_cooling_device *cdev; > > }; > > > > /* Only for ACPI */ > > @@ -386,6 +390,12 @@ struct cpufreq_driver { > > */ > > #define CPUFREQ_NO_AUTO_DYNAMIC_SWITCHING BIT(6) > > > > +/* > > + * Set by drivers that want the core to automatically register the cpufreq > > + * driver as a thermal cooling device. > > + */ > > +#define CPUFREQ_AUTO_REGISTER_COOLING_DEV BIT(7) > > + > > int cpufreq_register_driver(struct cpufreq_driver *driver_data); > > int cpufreq_unregister_driver(struct cpufreq_driver *driver_data); > > > > @@ -415,6 +425,17 @@ cpufreq_verify_within_cpu_limits(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) > > policy->cpuinfo.max_freq); > > } > > > > +static inline void register_cooling_device(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) > > +{ > > + policy->cdev = of_cpufreq_cooling_register(policy); > > +} > > + > > +static inline void unregister_cooling_device(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) > > +{ > > + cpufreq_cooling_unregister(policy->cdev); > > + policy->cdev = NULL; > > +} > > I thought that we discussed over chat that you wouldn't add any > wrapper routines. How do you see these getting used ? I will suggest > that this should be open coded in the core itself. Aah, I understood your earlier comment and the chat to mean that we could get rid of the #ifdefs. I didn't catch on to the fact you wanted to get rid of the wrapper routines itself. My bad. Will respin. Regards, Amit