[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-id: <20141117140245.51837653@amdc2363>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 14:02:45 +0100
From: Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@...sung.com>
To: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
Cc: Mikko Perttunen <mikko.perttunen@...si.fi>,
Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@...il.com>,
Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel.garcia@...e-electrons.com>,
Kuninori Morimoto <kuninori.morimoto.gx@...esas.com>,
Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@...com>,
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>,
Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@...ess.pl>,
Nobuhiro Iwamatsu <iwamatsu@...auri.org>,
Mikko Perttunen <mperttunen@...dia.com>,
Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] thermal:cpu cooling:tegra: Provide deferred probing
for tegra driver
Hi Thierry,
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 12:50:13PM +0100, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
> > Hi Thierry,
> >
> > > On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 12:47:33PM +0200, Mikko Perttunen wrote:
> > > > Tested-by: Mikko Perttunen <mikko.perttunen@...si.fi>
> > > >
> > > > One potential issue I can see is that if the cpufreq driver
> > > > fails to probe then you'll never get the thermal driver either.
> > > > For example, Tegra124 currently has no cpufreq driver, so if
> > > > CONFIG_CPU_THERMAL was enabled, then the soctherm driver would
> > > > never be able to probe. But I don't really have a solution for
> > > > this either.
> > >
> > > It doesn't seem like there's any code whatsoever to deal with
> > > cpufreq within the soctherm driver, so deferring probe based on
> > > something we're not using anyway seems rather useless.
> >
> > So, If I understood you correctly - this patch is not needed in the
> > /tegra_soctherm.c:[tegra_defconfig] driver and can be safely
> > omitted in v2 of this driver.
>
> What I'm saying is that I don't think doing this mass conversion
> wholesale is useful since none of the drivers register a cooling
> device based on cpufreq. In other words: if you're not going to use a
> feature there's no use testing for it.
>
It seems, like one option here would be to add deferred proble to
cpufreq_cooling_register() or check which driver in its thermal probe
is calling cpufreq_cooling_register() function.
The latter option explains why in the imx_thermal.c file we check for
deferred probe without #ifdefs for CONFIG_CPU_THERMAL.
If no objections, I would like to stick to the code already available
in imx_thermal.c.
> Thierry
--
Best regards,
Lukasz Majewski
Samsung R&D Institute Poland (SRPOL) | Linux Platform Group
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists