lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [May]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 2/3] PM / EM: Expose perf domain struct
On Wednesday 15 May 2019 at 11:56:30 (+0200), Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> 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.

OK, that works for me. I'll give it a go in v5.

Thanks !
Quentin

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-05-15 12:08    [W:0.035 / U:13.860 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site