Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 23 Apr 2019 09:07:35 +0100 | From | Quentin Perret <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] thermal: cpu_cooling: Migrate to using the EM framework |
| |
On Monday 22 Apr 2019 at 13:55:18 (+0530), Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 18-04-19, 09:04, Quentin Perret wrote: > > On Thursday 18 Apr 2019 at 09:23:23 (+0530), Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > On 17-04-19, 10:43, Quentin Perret wrote: > > > > static struct thermal_cooling_device * > > > > __cpufreq_cooling_register(struct device_node *np, > > > > - struct cpufreq_policy *policy, u32 capacitance) > > > > + struct cpufreq_policy *policy, > > > > + struct em_perf_domain *em) > > > > { > > > > > > > + if (em_is_sane(cpufreq_cdev, em)) { > > > > + cpufreq_cdev->em = em; > > > > cooling_ops = &cpufreq_power_cooling_ops; > > > > - } else { > > > > + } else if (policy->freq_table_sorted != CPUFREQ_TABLE_UNSORTED) { > > > > cooling_ops = &cpufreq_cooling_ops; > > > > + } else { > > > > + WARN(1, "cpu_cooling: no valid frequency table found\n"); > > > > > > Well the frequency table is valid, isn't it ? > > > > True ... > > > > > Maybe something like: "cpu_cooling doesn't support unsorted frequency tables" ? > > > > Right, otherwise I guess that could be confused with the check on > > cpu_table_count_valid_entries() above. And while I'm thinking about it > > perhaps WARN is a bit too much here ? We can handle the error safely so > > pr_err() should be enough ? > > Hmm, I would keep the WARN as it is hard to miss it compared to a > simple pr_err.
Right, I don't really mind either way TBH. But is this worse than having a NULL policy for example ? We have a standard pr_err() in this case. And same thing if the cooling device registration failed actually. Do you see a good reason to deal with EM stuff differently ?
Thanks, Quentin
| |