On 10-01-19, 05:30, Amit Kucheria wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c | 5 +++++
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c b/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c
> index 649dddd72749..1c01311e5927 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c
> @@ -5,6 +5,7 @@
>
> #include <linux/bitfield.h>
> #include <linux/cpufreq.h>
> +#include <linux/cpu_cooling.h>
> #include <linux/init.h>
> #include <linux/kernel.h>
> #include <linux/module.h>
> @@ -216,7 +217,10 @@ static int qcom_cpufreq_hw_cpu_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> static int qcom_cpufreq_hw_cpu_exit(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> {
> void __iomem *base = policy->driver_data - REG_PERF_STATE;
> + struct thermal_cooling_device *cdev = policy->cooldev;
>
> + if (cdev)
> + cpufreq_cooling_unregister(cdev);
> kfree(policy->freq_table);
> devm_iounmap(&global_pdev->dev, base);
>
> @@ -238,6 +242,7 @@ static struct cpufreq_driver cpufreq_qcom_hw_driver = {
> .init = qcom_cpufreq_hw_cpu_init,
> .exit = qcom_cpufreq_hw_cpu_exit,
> .fast_switch = qcom_cpufreq_hw_fast_switch,
> + .ready = generic_cpufreq_ready,
> .name = "qcom-cpufreq-hw",
> .attr = qcom_cpufreq_hw_attr,
> };
I liked the idea of reducing code duplication, but not much the
implementation. All we were able to get rid of was a call to
of_cpufreq_cooling_register() and nothing else. Is it worth it ?
Maybe we can add another flag in cpufreq.h:
#define CPUFREQ_AUTO_REGISTER_COOLING_DEV (1 << 7)
and let the core do it all automatically by itself, that will get rid
of code duplication actually.
@Rafael: What do you say ?
--
viresh
