Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 24 Oct 2023 09:09:50 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 04/18] PM: EM: Refactor em_pd_get_efficient_state() to be more flexible | From | Lukasz Luba <> |
| |
On 10/23/23 18:39, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > On 25/09/2023 10:11, Lukasz Luba wrote: >> The Energy Model (EM) is going to support runtime modification. There >> are going to be 2 EM tables which store information. This patch aims >> to prepare the code to be generic and use one of the tables. The function >> will no longer get a pointer to 'struct em_perf_domain' (the EM) but >> instead a pointer to 'struct em_perf_state' (which is one of the EM's >> tables). >> >> Prepare em_pd_get_efficient_state() for the upcoming changes and >> make it possible to re-use. Return an index for the best performance >> state for a given EM table. The function arguments that are introduced >> should allow to work on different performance state arrays. The caller of >> em_pd_get_efficient_state() should be able to use the index either >> on the default or the modifiable EM table. >> >> Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com> >> --- > > [ ... ] > >> @@ -251,7 +253,9 @@ static inline unsigned long em_cpu_energy(struct >> em_perf_domain *pd, >> * Find the lowest performance state of the Energy Model above the >> * requested frequency. >> */ >> - ps = em_pd_get_efficient_state(pd, freq); >> + i = em_pd_get_efficient_state(pd->table, pd->nr_perf_states, freq, >> + pd->flags); > > nitpicking but s/i/state/
Here it makes sense, I'll try to use 'state', but if that could be a bit odd in later patches code, where I have:
ps = &runtime_table->state[i];
than:
'->state[state]'
won't fly. Although, let me check, because I'm going to drop the 2 tables design so some fields might get different names.
> > Other than that: > > Reviewed-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Thanks!
> > >> + ps = &pd->table[i]; >> /* >> * The capacity of a CPU in the domain at the performance state >> (ps) >
| |