linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] cpufreq: Auto-register the driver as a thermal cooling device if asked

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

Message-ID: <20190123103624.t4b2ij3bfvpezgjf@vireshk-i7>
Date:   Wed, 23 Jan 2019 16:06:24 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@...aro.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        edubezval@...il.com, swboyd@...omium.org, dianders@...omium.org,
        mka@...omium.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        Tao Wang <kevin.wangtao@...ilicon.com>,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] cpufreq: Auto-register the driver as a thermal
 cooling device if asked

On 21-01-19, 21:10, Amit Kucheria wrote:
> @@ -151,6 +152,11 @@ struct cpufreq_policy {
>  
>  	/* For cpufreq driver's internal use */
>  	void			*driver_data;
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_THERMAL
> +	/* Pointer to the cooling device if used for thermal mitigation */
> +	struct thermal_cooling_device *cdev;
> +#endif
>  };
>  
>  /* Only for ACPI */
> @@ -386,6 +392,12 @@ struct cpufreq_driver {
>   */
>  #define CPUFREQ_NO_AUTO_DYNAMIC_SWITCHING	BIT(6)
>  
> +/*
> + * Set by drivers that want the core to automatically register the cpufreq
> + * driver as a thermal cooling device.
> + */
> +#define CPUFREQ_AUTO_REGISTER_COOLING_DEV	BIT(7)
> +
>  int cpufreq_register_driver(struct cpufreq_driver *driver_data);
>  int cpufreq_unregister_driver(struct cpufreq_driver *driver_data);
>  
> @@ -415,6 +427,19 @@ cpufreq_verify_within_cpu_limits(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>  			policy->cpuinfo.max_freq);
>  }
>  
> +#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_THERMAL
> +static inline void register_cooling_device(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) {
> +	policy->cdev = of_cpufreq_cooling_register(policy);
> +}
> +
> +static inline void unregister_cooling_device(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) {
> +	cpufreq_cooling_unregister(policy->cdev);
> +	policy->cdev = NULL;
> +}
> +#else
> +static inline void register_cooling_device(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) {}
> +static inline void unregister_cooling_device(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) {}
> +#endif

The whole ifdef hackery here saves space for a pointer per policy.
Just get rid of it, it isn't worth it.

-- 
viresh