Hi Daniel,
On 4/23/20 2:22 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 09:42:03AM +0100, Lukasz Luba wrote:
The Energy Model framework is going to support devices other that CPUs. In
order to make this happen change the callback function and add pointer to
a device as an argument.
Update the related users to use new function and new callback from the
Energy Model.
Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@xxxxxxx>
---
[ ... ]
+static struct em_perf_domain *
+em_create_pd(struct device *dev, int nr_states, struct em_data_callback *cb,
+ cpumask_t *span)
{
unsigned long opp_eff, prev_opp_eff = ULONG_MAX;
unsigned long power, freq, prev_freq = 0;
@@ -106,7 +107,7 @@ static struct em_perf_domain *em_create_pd(cpumask_t *span, int nr_states,
* lowest performance state of 'cpu' above 'freq' and updates
* 'power' and 'freq' accordingly.
*/
- ret = cb->active_power(&power, &freq, cpu);
+ ret = cb->active_power(&power, &freq, dev);
if (ret) {
pr_err("pd%d: invalid perf. state: %d\n", cpu, ret);
goto free_ps_table;
Why are the changes 'cpu' to 'dev' in the patch 4/10 instead of this one ?
The patch 4/10 is quite big and I didn't want to put also this change in
there. I thought for readability it would be better to have a separate
patch with self-contained change (or I got your suggestion too strict).
In this patch I just wanted to show more precisely that this function
callback 'active_power' which is used by 2 users (currently):
cpufreq/scmi-cpufreq.c and opp/of.c
is going to change an argument and these files are affected.
The 4/10 changes a lot lines, while first 3 patches can be treated as
a preparation for the upcoming major change (4/10).
Thank you for the review.
Regards,
Lukasz
@@ -237,7 +238,7 @@ int em_dev_register_perf_domain(struct device *dev, unsigned int nr_states,
}
/* Create the performance domain and add it to the Energy Model. */
- pd = em_create_pd(span, nr_states, cb);
+ pd = em_create_pd(dev, nr_states, cb, span);
if (!pd) {
ret = -EINVAL;
goto unlock;
