lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Nov]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 3/3] cpufreq: arm_big_little: Add support to register a cpufreq cooling device
Date
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> writes:

> On 09-11-15, 17:29, Punit Agrawal wrote:
>> Register passive cooling devices when initialising cpufreq on
>> big.LITTLE systems. If the device tree provides a dynamic power
>> coefficient for the CPUs then the bound cooling device will support
>> the extensions that allow it to be used with all the existing thermal
>> governors including the power allocator governor.
>>
>> A cooling device will be created per individual frequency domain and
>> can be bound to thermal zones via the thermal DT bindings.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@arm.com>
>> Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
>> Cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
>> Cc: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/cpufreq/arm_big_little.c | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>> 1 file changed, 50 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/arm_big_little.c b/drivers/cpufreq/arm_big_little.c
>> index f1e42f8..72a2777 100644
>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/arm_big_little.c
>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/arm_big_little.c
>> @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@
>> #include <linux/cpu.h>
>> #include <linux/cpufreq.h>
>> #include <linux/cpumask.h>
>> +#include <linux/cpu_cooling.h>
>> #include <linux/export.h>
>> #include <linux/module.h>
>> #include <linux/mutex.h>
>> @@ -55,6 +56,10 @@ static bool bL_switching_enabled;
>> #define ACTUAL_FREQ(cluster, freq) ((cluster == A7_CLUSTER) ? freq << 1 : freq)
>> #define VIRT_FREQ(cluster, freq) ((cluster == A7_CLUSTER) ? freq >> 1 : freq)
>>
>> +struct private_data {
>> + struct thermal_cooling_device *cdev;
>> +};
>
> I think we need to be consistent within the driver, and so this must
> be stored in a similar way to what we do for other structures. We have
> static arrays for them, please do it that way only OR first change all
> of them to be part of a bigger private_data structure.

Sure, I'll switch to using static arrays. There seem to be a lot of
assumptions that might be easily broken in moving all the data into a
single structure. I'll leave that as a later change.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-11-16 16:41    [W:0.050 / U:18.712 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site