On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 11:36 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 21-01-19, 21:10, Amit Kucheria wrote:
> > @@ -151,6 +152,11 @@ struct cpufreq_policy {
> >
> > /* For cpufreq driver's internal use */
> > void *driver_data;
> > +
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_THERMAL
> > + /* Pointer to the cooling device if used for thermal mitigation */
> > + struct thermal_cooling_device *cdev;
> > +#endif
> > };
> >
> > /* Only for ACPI */
> > @@ -386,6 +392,12 @@ struct cpufreq_driver {
> > */
> > #define CPUFREQ_NO_AUTO_DYNAMIC_SWITCHING BIT(6)
> >
> > +/*
> > + * Set by drivers that want the core to automatically register the cpufreq
> > + * driver as a thermal cooling device.
> > + */
> > +#define CPUFREQ_AUTO_REGISTER_COOLING_DEV BIT(7)
> > +
> > int cpufreq_register_driver(struct cpufreq_driver *driver_data);
> > int cpufreq_unregister_driver(struct cpufreq_driver *driver_data);
> >
> > @@ -415,6 +427,19 @@ cpufreq_verify_within_cpu_limits(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> > policy->cpuinfo.max_freq);
> > }
> >
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_THERMAL
> > +static inline void register_cooling_device(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) {
> > + policy->cdev = of_cpufreq_cooling_register(policy);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static inline void unregister_cooling_device(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) {
> > + cpufreq_cooling_unregister(policy->cdev);
> > + policy->cdev = NULL;
> > +}
> > +#else
> > +static inline void register_cooling_device(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) {}
> > +static inline void unregister_cooling_device(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) {}
> > +#endif
>
> The whole ifdef hackery here saves space for a pointer per policy.
> Just get rid of it, it isn't worth it.
Is struct thermal_cooling_device defined if CONFIG_THERMAL is unset?
