On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 11:44 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 23-01-19, 16:13, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 23-01-19, 11:39, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > 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?
> >
> > No and it is defined in thermal.h without any ifdef stuff.
>
> I meant it is always available and doesn't depend on CONFIG_THERMAL.
OK
I guess we can live with an extra unused pointer per policy on
platforms with CONFIG_CPU_THERMAL unset.
