Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [Patch v4 4/7] thermal: Add generic power domain warming device driver. | From | Thara Gopinath <> | Date | Fri, 13 Mar 2020 11:02:58 -0400 |
| |
Hi Ulf,
Thanks for the reviews. Will send out v5 soon.
On 3/13/20 9:13 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote: > [...] > >>>> +static struct thermal_cooling_device_ops pd_warming_device_ops = { >>>> + .get_max_state = ::pd_wdev_get_max_state, >>>> + .get_cur_state = pd_wdev_get_cur_state, >>>> + .set_cur_state = pd_wdev_set_cur_state, >>>> +}; >>>> + >>>> +struct thermal_cooling_device * >>>> +pwr_domain_warming_register(struct device *parent, char *pd_name, int pd_id) >>> >>> Maybe rename this to: thermal_of_pd_warming_register() >> >> How about pd_of_warming_register? It is consistent with other cooling >> device register like cpuidle_of_cooling_register and >> cpufreq_of_cooling_register. > > Well, we actually have the following: > of_devfreq_cooling_register() > of_cpufreq_cooling_register() > cpuidle_of_cooling_register() > > So maybe this is the most consistent. :-) > of_pd_warming_register()
Sure!
> >> >>> Moreover, I think you could replace the "struct device *parent", with >>> a "struct device_node *node" as in-parameter. That's all you need, >>> right? >> >> You mean pd_wdev->dev.parent need not be populated ? The device >> in this case will be created under /sys/devices which I do not think >> is the correct. > > Good point! > >> With a parent device specified, the power controller that resides the >> power domain that can act as the warming dev, becomes the parent of the >> warming dev. In case of this patch series, for the mx warming dev, >> 179c0000.rsc/179c0000.rsc\:power-controller/ becomes the parent.(The >> device will be created under >> /sys/devices/platform/soc\@0/179c0000.rsc/179c0000.rsc\:power-controller/) >> >> Other way might be to register the warming device under virtual devices >> as a new category of devices. > > No, that sounds wrong. > > Another option is to create a specific bus type for these new > pd_warming devices. But I admit that sounds a bit too much, let's > assign a parent. > >> >> I prefer to keep it as a child of the power controller device, but I am >> open to explore other options and to re-do this bit. What do you think? > > Sure, sorry for the noise.
No issues!
> >> >>> >>>> +{ >>>> + struct pd_warming_device *pd_wdev; >>>> + struct of_phandle_args pd_args; >>>> + int ret; >>>> + >>>> + pd_wdev = kzalloc(sizeof(*pd_wdev), GFP_KERNEL); >>>> + if (!pd_wdev) >>>> + return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM); >>>> + >>>> + dev_set_name(&pd_wdev->dev, "%s_warming_dev", pd_name); >>> >>> Perhaps skip the in-param *pd_name and make use of the suggested >>> "struct device_node *node", the index and something with "warming...", >>> when setting the name. >> >> Won't the index have to be in-param in this case ? > > Isn't that already the case? > > Huh, long time since I reviewed this. > >> >>> >>> Just an idea, as to simplify for the caller. >>> >>>> + pd_wdev->dev.parent = parent; >>> >>> This isn't needed, I think. > > So ignore this comment, as discussed above. > >>> >>>> + >>>> + ret = device_register(&pd_wdev->dev); >>>> + if (ret) >>>> + goto error; >>>> + >>>> + pd_args.np = parent->of_node; >>>> + pd_args.args[0] = pd_id; >>>> + pd_args.args_count = 1; >>>> + >>>> + ret = of_genpd_add_device(&pd_args, &pd_wdev->dev); >>>> + >>> >>> White space. >> >> Will fix it. >> >>> >>>> + if (ret) >>>> + goto error; >>>> + >>>> + ret = dev_pm_genpd_performance_state_count(&pd_wdev->dev); >>>> + if (ret < 0) >>>> + goto error; >>>> + >>>> + pd_wdev->max_state = ret - 1; >>>> + pm_runtime_enable(&pd_wdev->dev); >>>> + pd_wdev->runtime_resumed = false; >>>> + >>>> + pd_wdev->cdev = thermal_of_cooling_device_parent_register >>>> + (NULL, parent, pd_name, pd_wdev, >>>> + &pd_warming_device_ops); >>> >>> As stated in patch3, I don't get it why you need to use this new API >>> for "parents". >> >> I agree with you. I cannot re-collect my thought process for this API. >> I compiled and tested using the regular API and everything works fine. >> I will drop patch 3 and use the thermal_of_cooling_device_register here. > > Great, one confusing piece seems to go away then. :-) > >> >>> >>>> + if (IS_ERR(pd_wdev->cdev)) { >>>> + pr_err("unable to register %s cooling device\n", pd_name); >>>> + pm_runtime_disable(&pd_wdev->dev); >>>> + ret = PTR_ERR(pd_wdev->cdev); >>>> + goto error; >>>> + } >>>> + >>>> + return pd_wdev->cdev; >>>> +error: >>>> + put_device(&pd_wdev->dev); >>> >>> If device_register() succeeds you need to call device_unregister(), >>> rather than put_device() as a part of the error handling. >> >> Will fix this. >> >>> >>>> + kfree(pd_wdev); >>> >>> You need a ->release() callback to manage kfree(), after you called >>> device_register(). >> >> mm?? I did not get this. What release callback? You mean for power >> controller driver to call ? > > No, this how life cycle management of devices should be implemented. > > Have a look at genpd_release_dev() - and see how that is being used > for genpd's virtual devices, that should explain more.
Ah yes. I get it now. Will fix this.
-- Warm Regards Thara
| |