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 <swb...@chromium.org>
> Suggested-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.ku...@linaro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Amit Kucheria <amit.kuche...@linaro.org>
> Reviewed-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <m...@chromium.org>
> Tested-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <m...@chromium.org>
> ---
> 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 <linux/clk.h>
> #include <linux/cpumask.h>
> +#include <linux/cpu_cooling.h>
> #include <linux/completion.h>
> #include <linux/kobject.h>
> #include <linux/notifier.h>
> @@ -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.
--
viresh
