On 21-01-19, 21:10, Amit Kucheria wrote:
> @@ -151,6 +152,11 @@ struct cpufreq_policy {
>
> /* For cpufreq driver's internal use */
> void *driver_data;
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_THERMAL
> + /* Pointer to the cooling device if used for thermal mitigation */
> + struct thermal_cooling_device *cdev;
> +#endif
> };
>
> /* Only for ACPI */
> @@ -386,6 +392,12 @@ 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 +427,19 @@ cpufreq_verify_within_cpu_limits(struct cpufreq_policy
> *policy)
> policy->cpuinfo.max_freq);
> }
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_THERMAL
> +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;
> +}
> +#else
> +static inline void register_cooling_device(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) {}
> +static inline void unregister_cooling_device(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> {}
> +#endif
The whole ifdef hackery here saves space for a pointer per policy.
Just get rid of it, it isn't worth it.
--
viresh
