Hi Daniel,
Thank you for your comments.
On 4/3/20 5:21 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
On 18/03/2020 12:45, Lukasz Luba wrote:
The Energy Model framework supports both: CPUs and devfreq devices. Drop
the CPU specific interface with cpumask and add struct device. Add also a
return value. This new interface provides easy way to create a simple
Energy Model, which then might be used in i.e. thermal subsystem.
This patch contains too many different changes.
OK, I will create 4 patches:
1) change with new argument in API function:
void dev_pm_opp_of_register_em(dev, cpumask)
and updated drivers
2) changes with _get_cpu_power --> _get_power
3) changes adding int return in dev_pm_opp_of_register_em()
and updating error handling path inside
4) header changes with new dev_pm_opp_of_unregister_em()
There are fixes and traces added in addition to a function prototype change. >
Please provide patches separated by logical changes.
I will try to make this API change in a safe way, which
won't break cpufreq drivers compilation.
If the cpumask is extracted in the underlying function
em_register_perf_domain() as suggested in the previous patch 1/5,
dev_pm_opp_of_register_em() can be struct device centric only.
That would be ideal situation but unfortunately not possible to
implement (as responded in 1/5).
Regards,
Lukasz
