On Thu 19 Mar 18:41 PDT 2020, Thara Gopinath wrote:
> RPMh power control hosts power domains that can be used as
> thermal warming devices. Register these power domains
> with the generic power domain warming device thermal framework.
>
> Reviewed-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Thara Gopinath <thara.gopinath@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>
> v3->v4:
> - Introduce a boolean value is_warming_dev in rpmhpd structure to
> indicate if a generic power domain can be used as a warming
> device or not.With this change, device tree no longer has to
> specify which power domain inside the rpmh power domain provider
> is a warming device.
> - Move registering of warming devices into a late initcall to
> ensure that warming devices are registered after thermal
> framework is initialized.
This information is lost when we merge patches, as such I would like
such design decisions to be described in the commit message itself.
But...
>
> drivers/soc/qcom/rpmhpd.c | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmhpd.c b/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmhpd.c
> index 7142409a3b77..4e9c0bbb8826 100644
> --- a/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmhpd.c
> +++ b/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmhpd.c
> @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@
> #include <linux/of_device.h>
> #include <linux/platform_device.h>
> #include <linux/pm_opp.h>
> +#include <linux/pd_warming.h>
> #include <soc/qcom/cmd-db.h>
> #include <soc/qcom/rpmh.h>
> #include <dt-bindings/power/qcom-rpmpd.h>
> @@ -48,6 +49,7 @@ struct rpmhpd {
> bool enabled;
> const char *res_name;
> u32 addr;
> + bool is_warming_dev;
> };
>
> struct rpmhpd_desc {
> @@ -55,6 +57,8 @@ struct rpmhpd_desc {
> size_t num_pds;
> };
>
> +const struct rpmhpd_desc *global_desc;
> +
> static DEFINE_MUTEX(rpmhpd_lock);
>
> /* SDM845 RPMH powerdomains */
> @@ -89,6 +93,7 @@ static struct rpmhpd sdm845_mx = {
> .pd = { .name = "mx", },
> .peer = &sdm845_mx_ao,
> .res_name = "mx.lvl",
> + .is_warming_dev = true,
> };
>
> static struct rpmhpd sdm845_mx_ao = {
> @@ -452,7 +457,14 @@ static int rpmhpd_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> &rpmhpds[i]->pd);
> }
>
> - return of_genpd_add_provider_onecell(pdev->dev.of_node, data);
> + ret = of_genpd_add_provider_onecell(pdev->dev.of_node, data);
> +
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> +
> + global_desc = desc;
> +
> + return 0;
> }
>
> static struct platform_driver rpmhpd_driver = {
> @@ -469,3 +481,26 @@ static int __init rpmhpd_init(void)
> return platform_driver_register(&rpmhpd_driver);
> }
> core_initcall(rpmhpd_init);
> +
> +static int __init rpmhpd_init_warming_device(void)
> +{
> + size_t num_pds;
> + struct rpmhpd **rpmhpds;
> + int i;
> +
> + if (!global_desc)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + rpmhpds = global_desc->rpmhpds;
> + num_pds = global_desc->num_pds;
> +
> + if (!of_find_property(rpmhpds[0]->dev->of_node, "#cooling-cells", NULL))
> + return 0;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < num_pds; i++)
> + if (rpmhpds[i]->is_warming_dev)
> + of_pd_warming_register(rpmhpds[i]->dev, i);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +late_initcall(rpmhpd_init_warming_device);
...why can't this be done in rpmhpd_probe()?
In particular with the recent patches from John Stultz to allow rpmhpd
to be built as a module I don't think there's any guarantees that
rpmh_probe() will have succeeded before rpmhpd_init_warming_device()
executes.
Regards,
Bjorn
