On Monday, January 28, 2019 9:32:44 AM CET Daniel Lezcano wrote: > On 28/01/2019 07:41, 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. > > > > In order to allow this, we add a struct thermal_cooling_device pointer > > to struct cpufreq_policy so that drivers don't need to store it in a > > private data structure. > > > > Suggested-by: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Suggested-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Reviewed-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Tested-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > [ ... ] > > > +/* > > + * 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) > > + > > Isn't the CPUFREQ_IS_COOLING_DEV more appropriate? We define a property > of the cpufreq driver and the resulting action is to auto-register, no? Yes. Cheers, Rafael
