On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 10:12 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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.
Fixed
> > > +
> > > + *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.
Fixed.
> > 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.
Fixed
Thanks for the review.
> > > + */
> > > +#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);
> > >
