On 15/05/2019 12:07, Quentin Perret wrote: > On Wednesday 15 May 2019 at 11:56:30 (+0200), Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> On 15/05/2019 11:17, Quentin Perret wrote: >>> 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. >> >> Ok in this case it will be better to drop the 2/3 and add a small series >> doing for the cpu_cooling.c >> >> #ifdef CONFIG_THERMAL_GOV_POWER_ALLOCATOR >> >> /* structure freq */ >> >> /* power2state */ >> >> /* state2power*/ >> >> /* getrequestedpower */ >> >> /* All functions needed for the above */ >> >> #endif >> >> static struct thermal_cooling_device_ops cpufreq_cooling_ops = { >> .get_max_state = cpufreq_get_max_state, >> .get_cur_state = cpufreq_get_cur_state, >> .set_cur_state = cpufreq_set_cur_state, >> #ifdef CONFIG_THERMAL_GOV_POWER_ALLOCATOR >> .get_requested_power = cpufreq_get_requested_power, >> .state2power = cpufreq_state2power, >> .power2state = cpufreq_power2state, >> #endif >> }; >> >> So you don't have to care about ENERGY_MODEL to be set as >> THERMAL_GOV_POWER_ALLOCATOR depends on it. >> >> I think the result for cpu_cooling.c will be even more cleaner with the >> em change. > > OK, that works for me. I'll give it a go in v5.
Viresh what do you think ? -- <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook | <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter | <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog