On Tuesday 10 Aug 2021 at 14:25:15 (+0100), Lukasz Luba wrote: > The way I see this is that the flag in cpufreq avoids > mistakes potentially made by driver developer. It will automaticaly > register the *simple* EM model via dev_pm_opp_of_register_em() on behalf > of drivers (which is already done manually by drivers). The developer > would just set the flag similarly to CPUFREQ_IS_COOLING_DEV and be sure > it will register at the right time. Well tested flag approach should be > safer, easier to understand, maintain. I would agree with all that if calling dev_pm_opp_of_register_em() was complicated, but that is not really the case. I don't think we ever call PM_OPP directly from cpufreq core ATM, which makes a lot of sense if you consider PM_OPP arch-specific. I could understand that we might accept a little 'violation' of the abstraction with this series if there were real benefits, but I just don't see them.
