On 17-01-19, 00:03, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, January 14, 2019 5:34:54 PM CET 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.
> >
> > Suggested-by: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Suggested-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++
> > include/linux/cpufreq.h | 6 ++++++
> > 2 files changed, 23 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > index 6f23ebb395f1..cd6e750d3d82 100644
> > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@
> > #include <linux/syscore_ops.h>
> > #include <linux/tick.h>
> > #include <trace/events/power.h>
> > +#include <linux/cpu_cooling.h>
> >
> > static LIST_HEAD(cpufreq_policy_list);
> >
> > @@ -1318,6 +1319,14 @@ static int cpufreq_online(unsigned int cpu)
> > if (cpufreq_driver->ready)
> > cpufreq_driver->ready(policy);
> >
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_THERMAL
> > + if (cpufreq_driver->flags & CPUFREQ_AUTO_REGISTER_COOLING_DEV) {
> > + struct thermal_cooling_device **cdev = &policy->cooldev;
We use cdev for the cooling device everywhere in the kernel, so please
do s/cooldev/cdev/ in your patches.
> > +
> > + *cdev = of_cpufreq_cooling_register(policy);
>
> What would be wrong with
>
> policy->cooldev = of_cpufreq_cooling_register(policy);
>
> > + }
> > +#endif
>
> Please remove the #ifdefs from cpufreq_online() and cpufreq_offline().
>
> Use wrappers that would become empty stubs for CONFIG_CPU_THERMAL unset.
>
> > +
> > pr_debug("initialization complete\n");
> >
> > return 0;
> > @@ -1411,6 +1420,14 @@ static int cpufreq_offline(unsigned int cpu)
> > if (has_target())
> > cpufreq_exit_governor(policy);
> >
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_THERMAL
> > + if (cpufreq_driver->flags & CPUFREQ_AUTO_REGISTER_COOLING_DEV) {
> > + struct thermal_cooling_device **cdev = &policy->cooldev;
> > +
> > + cpufreq_cooling_unregister(*cdev);
>
> Again, why don't you simply pass policy->cooldev here?
I also had the same comments when I looked at your patch :)
I also think we must do the unregistering before calling stop_cpu()
callback.
> Also, would it make sense to clear policy->cooldev at this point? It points
> to freed memory after cpufreq_cooling_unregister().
Since the core doesn't refer to this field at all and uses it only
while registering/unregistering as a cooling device, there is no
technical issue that we will have today. If someone uses the dangling
pointer later on in future, it will be a bug. So I wouldn't care much
about resetting it here.
> > + }
> > +#endif
> > +
> > /*
> > * Perform the ->exit() even during light-weight tear-down,
> > * since this is a core component, and is essential for the
> > diff --git a/include/linux/cpufreq.h b/include/linux/cpufreq.h
> > index 7d0cf54125fa..70ad02088825 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/cpufreq.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/cpufreq.h
> > @@ -390,6 +390,12 @@ struct cpufreq_driver {
> > */
> > #define CPUFREQ_NO_AUTO_DYNAMIC_SWITCHING (1 << 6)
> >
> > +/*
> > + * Set by drivers that want the core to automatically register the cpufreq
> > + * driver as a thermal cooling device
Add a full-stop here please.
> > + */
> > +#define CPUFREQ_AUTO_REGISTER_COOLING_DEV (1 << 7)
> > +
> > int cpufreq_register_driver(struct cpufreq_driver *driver_data);
> > int cpufreq_unregister_driver(struct cpufreq_driver *driver_data);
> >
> >
>
--
viresh
