lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jun]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/6] thermal/drivers/cpu_cooling: Unregister with the policy
From
Date
On 24/06/2019 09:37, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 24-06-19, 09:30, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> On 24/06/2019 08:03, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>>> On 21-06-19, 15:22, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>>> Currently the function cpufreq_cooling_register() returns a cooling
>>>> device pointer which is used back as a pointer to call the function
>>>> cpufreq_cooling_unregister(). Even if it is correct, it would make
>>>> sense to not leak the structure inside a cpufreq driver and keep the
>>>> code thermal code self-encapsulate. Moreover, that forces to add an
>>>> extra variable in each driver using this function.
>>>>
>>>> Instead of passing the cooling device to unregister, pass the policy.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/cpufreq/arm_big_little.c | 2 +-
>>>> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 2 +-
>>>> drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c | 18 ++++++++++--------
>>>> drivers/thermal/imx_thermal.c | 4 ++--
>>>> .../thermal/ti-soc-thermal/ti-thermal-common.c | 2 +-
>>>> include/linux/cpu_cooling.h | 6 +++---
>>>> 6 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
>>
>> Just a side note, does it make sense to have the function called from
>> imx_thermal.c and ti-thermal-common.c? Sounds like also a leakage from
>> cpufreq to thermal drivers, no?
>
> I am not sure what you are proposing here :)

Actually I'm asking your opinion :)

The structure in drivers/thermal/imx_thermal.c

struct imx_thermal_data {
struct cpufreq_policy *policy; <<<< in the thermal data ?!
[ ... ]
};

And then:

#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_FREQ
/*
* Create cooling device in case no #cooling-cells property is available in
* CPU node
*/
static int imx_thermal_register_legacy_cooling(struct imx_thermal_data
*data)
{
struct device_node *np;
int ret;

data->policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(0);
if (!data->policy) {
pr_debug("%s: CPUFreq policy not found\n", __func__);
return -EPROBE_DEFER;
}

np = of_get_cpu_node(data->policy->cpu, NULL);

if (!np || !of_find_property(np, "#cooling-cells", NULL)) {
data->cdev = cpufreq_cooling_register(data->policy);
if (IS_ERR(data->cdev)) {
ret = PTR_ERR(data->cdev);
cpufreq_cpu_put(data->policy);
return ret;
}
}

return 0;
}

[ ... ]

Shouldn't this be move in the drivers/cpufreq/<whatever driver> ?

--
<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: 2019-06-24 09:47    [W:0.068 / U:49.544 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site