linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 05/17] thermal: cpu_cooling: remove cpufreq_cooling_get

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 12 Apr 2017 11:55:16 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@...il.com>
Cc:     Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Javi Merino <javi.merino@...nel.org>,
        Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
        Amit Daniel Kachhap <amit.kachhap@...il.com>,
        linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/17] thermal: cpu_cooling: remove
 cpufreq_cooling_get_level()

On 11-04-17, 10:43, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 10:59:40AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > There is only one user of cpufreq_cooling_get_level() and that already
> > has pointer to the cpufreq_dev structure. It can directly call
> > get_level() instead and we can get rid of cpufreq_cooling_get_level().
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
> > ---
> >  drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c | 33 +--------------------------------
> >  include/linux/cpu_cooling.h   |  6 ------
> >  2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 38 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c b/drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c
> > index e2931c20c309..99dc6833de75 100644
> > --- a/drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c
> > +++ b/drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c
> > @@ -137,37 +137,6 @@ static unsigned long get_level(struct cpufreq_cooling_device *cpufreq_dev,
> >  }
> >  
> >  /**
> > - * cpufreq_cooling_get_level - for a given cpu, return the cooling level.
> > - * @cpu: cpu for which the level is required
> > - * @freq: the frequency of interest
> > - *
> > - * This function will match the cooling level corresponding to the
> > - * requested @freq and return it.
> > - *
> > - * Return: The matched cooling level on success or THERMAL_CSTATE_INVALID
> > - * otherwise.
> > - */
> > -unsigned long cpufreq_cooling_get_level(unsigned int cpu, unsigned int freq)
> > -{
> > -	struct cpufreq_cooling_device *cpufreq_dev;
> > -
> > -	mutex_lock(&cooling_list_lock);
> > -	list_for_each_entry(cpufreq_dev, &cpufreq_dev_list, node) {
> > -		if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, &cpufreq_dev->allowed_cpus)) {
> > -			unsigned long level = get_level(cpufreq_dev, freq);
> > -
> > -			mutex_unlock(&cooling_list_lock);
> > -			return level;
> > -		}
> > -	}
> > -	mutex_unlock(&cooling_list_lock);
> > -
> > -	pr_err("%s: cpu:%d not part of any cooling device\n", __func__, cpu);
> > -	return THERMAL_CSTATE_INVALID;
> > -}
> > -EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cpufreq_cooling_get_level);
> > -
> > -/**
> >   * cpufreq_thermal_notifier - notifier callback for cpufreq policy change.
> >   * @nb:	struct notifier_block * with callback info.
> >   * @event: value showing cpufreq event for which this function invoked.
> > @@ -698,7 +667,7 @@ static int cpufreq_power2state(struct thermal_cooling_device *cdev,
> >  	normalised_power = (dyn_power * 100) / last_load;
> >  	target_freq = cpu_power_to_freq(cpufreq_dev, normalised_power);
> >  
> > -	*state = cpufreq_cooling_get_level(cpu, target_freq);
> > +	*state = get_level(cpufreq_dev, target_freq);
> 
> Did I miss something or we are loosing semantics here?

I just got rid of an unnecessary wrapper routine. That's it. There shouldn't be
any functional change after this patch.

> I guess the idea at this point is to get the level corresponding to the
> frequency on a specific cpu. Let's have a look on get_level()..
> 
> I guess now we can rely on the freq table held in the
> cpufreq_cooling_device..

I am not sure I understood your concerns here :(

-- 
viresh