lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [May]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 2/3] PM / EM: Expose perf domain struct
From
Date
On 15/05/2019 11:17, Quentin Perret wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> On Wednesday 15 May 2019 at 11:06:18 (+0200), Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> On 15/05/2019 10:23, Quentin Perret wrote:
>>> In the current state, the perf_domain struct is fully defined only when
>>> CONFIG_ENERGY_MODEL=y. Since we need to write code that compiles both
>>> with or without that option in the thermal framework, make sure to
>>> actually define the struct regardless of the config option. That allows
>>> to avoid using stubbed accessor functions all the time in code paths
>>> that use the EM.
>>>
>>> Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
>>> Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com>
>>
>> This patch implies the cpu cooling device can be set without the energy
>> model.
>>
>> Isn't it possible to make a strong dependency for the cpu cooling device
>> on the energy model option, add the energy model as default on arm arch
>> and drop this patch?
>
> Right, that should work too.
>
>> After all, the cpu cooling is using the em framework.
>
> The reason I did it that way is simply to keep things flexible. If you
> don't compile in THERMAL_GOV_POWER_ALLOCATOR, you will never use the EM
> for CPU thermal. So I thought it would be good to not mandate compiling
> in ENERGY_MODEL in this case -- that should save a bit of space.
>
> But TBH I don't have a strong opinion on this one, so if everybody
> agrees it's fine to just make CPU_THERMAL depend on ENERGY_MODEL, I'm
> happy to drop this patch and fix patch 3/3. That would indeed simplify
> things a bit.

Ok in this case it will be better to drop the 2/3 and add a small series
doing for the cpu_cooling.c

#ifdef CONFIG_THERMAL_GOV_POWER_ALLOCATOR

/* structure freq */

/* power2state */

/* state2power*/

/* getrequestedpower */

/* All functions needed for the above */

#endif

static struct thermal_cooling_device_ops cpufreq_cooling_ops = {
.get_max_state = cpufreq_get_max_state,
.get_cur_state = cpufreq_get_cur_state,
.set_cur_state = cpufreq_set_cur_state,
#ifdef CONFIG_THERMAL_GOV_POWER_ALLOCATOR
.get_requested_power = cpufreq_get_requested_power,
.state2power = cpufreq_state2power,
.power2state = cpufreq_power2state,
#endif
};

So you don't have to care about ENERGY_MODEL to be set as
THERMAL_GOV_POWER_ALLOCATOR depends on it.

I think the result for cpu_cooling.c will be even more cleaner with the
em change.




--
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-05-15 11:57    [W:0.048 / U:1.236 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site