On 29-01-19, 09:15, Quentin Perret wrote: > On Tuesday 29 Jan 2019 at 10:51:44 (+0530), Viresh Kumar wrote: > > On 28-01-19, 11:36, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote: > > > I think this patch will result in error messages at registration on > > > platforms that use the cpufreq-dt driver and don't specify > > > 'dynamic-power-coefficient' for the CPUs in the DT. Not sure if that's > > > a problem as long as the cpufreq initialization succeeds regardless, > > > it could be seen as a not-so-gentle nudge to add the values. > > > > That wouldn't be acceptable. > > Fair enough. What I can propose in this case is to have in PM_OPP a > helper called 'dev_pm_opp_of_register_em()' or something like this. This > function will check all prerequisites are present (we have the right > values in DT, and so on) and then call (or not) em_register_perf_domain(). > Then we can make the CPUFreq drivers use that instead of calling > em_register_perf_domain() directly.
That should be fine. > That would also make it easy to implement Matthias' suggestion to not > call em_register_perf_domain() if an EM is already present. So you will track registration state within the OPP core for that ? Sorry but that doesn't sound right. What's wrong with having an unregister helper in energy-model to keep proper code flow everywhere ? -- viresh
