Hi Daniel, On Wednesday 15 May 2019 at 11:06:18 (+0200), Daniel Lezcano wrote: > On 15/05/2019 10:23, Quentin Perret wrote: > > In the current state, the perf_domain struct is fully defined only when > > CONFIG_ENERGY_MODEL=y. Since we need to write code that compiles both > > with or without that option in the thermal framework, make sure to > > actually define the struct regardless of the config option. That allows > > to avoid using stubbed accessor functions all the time in code paths > > that use the EM. > > > > Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.ku...@linaro.org> > > Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret <quentin.per...@arm.com> > > This patch implies the cpu cooling device can be set without the energy > model. > > Isn't it possible to make a strong dependency for the cpu cooling device > on the energy model option, add the energy model as default on arm arch > and drop this patch?
Right, that should work too. > After all, the cpu cooling is using the em framework. The reason I did it that way is simply to keep things flexible. If you don't compile in THERMAL_GOV_POWER_ALLOCATOR, you will never use the EM for CPU thermal. So I thought it would be good to not mandate compiling in ENERGY_MODEL in this case -- that should save a bit of space. But TBH I don't have a strong opinion on this one, so if everybody agrees it's fine to just make CPU_THERMAL depend on ENERGY_MODEL, I'm happy to drop this patch and fix patch 3/3. That would indeed simplify things a bit. Thanks, Quentin
