lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [May]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 07/11] PM / devfreg: Add support policy notifiers
On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 02:19:49PM +0900, MyungJoo Ham wrote:
> >Policy notifiers are called before a frequency change and may narrow
> >the min/max frequency range in devfreq_policy, which is used to adjust
> >the target frequency if it is beyond this range.
> >
> >Also add a few helpers:
> > - devfreq_verify_within_[dev_]limits()
> > - should be used by the notifiers for policy adjustments.
> > - dev_to_devfreq()
> > - lookup a devfreq strict from a device pointer
> >
> >Signed-off-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org>
> >---
> > drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c | 47 +++++++++++++++++++++-------
> > include/linux/devfreq.h | 66 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 2 files changed, 102 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> Hello Matthias,
>
>
> Why should we have yet another notifier from an instance of devfreq?
> Wouldn't it better to let the current notifier (transition notifier)
> handle new events as well by adding possible event states to it?

Honestly the main reason is that I sought inspiration from cpufreq,
which uses a dedicated policy notifier. Unfortunately this change
predates the git history so I don't know what was the exact rationale
to do it this way.

Some minor advantages that I see are:

- transition notifiers aren't bothered about adjustments and viceversa
- different data types are passed for transitions and adjustments,
which makes code of notifiers that handle both a bit more messy.

> Anyway, is this the reason why you've separated some data of devfreq
> into "policy" struct? (I was wondering why while reading commit 6/11).

The DEVFREQ_ADJUST is the reason for the "policy struct". With this
change we are dealing with 3 types of frequency pairs: user
(df->min/max_freq), devinfo (df->scaling_min/max_freq) and the
policy/adjustable ones. I think it is cleaner to group them in a
struct (and sub-structs), rather than having 6 individual
<type>_min/max_freq variables. Also it allows to only pass the policy
object to the notifiers, instead of the entire devfreq device.

I opted to do the introduction of the struct policy in a separate NOP
patch, because I think it is easier to review the 'reorg' churn
and the functional change separately.

Please let me know if you'd prefer to have certain things done
differently.

Thanks

Matthias

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-05-29 22:04    [W:0.212 / U:64.036 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site