On 05/03/2021 09:12, Steven Price wrote:
> On 04/03/2021 12:50, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> Currently the default behavior is to manually having the devfreq
>> backend to register themselves as a devfreq cooling device.
>>
>> There are no so many and actually it makes more sense to register the
>> devfreq device when adding it.
>>
>> Consequently, every devfreq becomes a cooling device like cpufreq is.
>>
>> Having a devfreq being registered as a cooling device can not mitigate
>> a thermal zone if it is not bound to this one. Thus, the current
>> configurations are not impacted by this change.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
[ ... ]
>> if (pfdevfreq->opp_of_table_added) {
>> dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table(&pfdev->pdev->dev);
>> pfdevfreq->opp_of_table_added = false;
>
> You've removed all references to pfdevfreq->cooling, so please also
> remove the member from struct panfrost_devfreq (as already done with
> lima and msm).
Sure, thanks for spotting this.
--
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
