linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/7] cpufreq: dt: Register an Energy Model

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]

Date:   Tue, 29 Jan 2019 11:00:41 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@....com>
Cc:     rjw@...ysocki.net, sudeep.holla@....com, liviu.dudau@....com,
        lorenzo.pieralisi@....com, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        mark.rutland@....com, nm@...com, sboyd@...nel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        dietmar.eggemann@....com, mka@...omium.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] cpufreq: dt: Register an Energy Model

On 28-01-19, 16:55, Quentin Perret wrote:
> Now that PM_OPP provides a helper function to estimate the power
> consumed by CPUs, make sure to try and register an Energy Model (EM)
> from cpufreq-dt, hence ensuring interested subsystems (the task
> scheduler, for example) can make use of that information when available.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@....com>
> ---
>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt.c | 7 ++++++-
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt.c
> index e58bfcb1169e..7556e07e7a9f 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt.c
> @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@
>  #include <linux/cpu_cooling.h>
>  #include <linux/cpufreq.h>
>  #include <linux/cpumask.h>
> +#include <linux/energy_model.h>
>  #include <linux/err.h>
>  #include <linux/module.h>
>  #include <linux/of.h>
> @@ -152,6 +153,7 @@ static int resources_available(void)
>  
>  static int cpufreq_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>  {
> +	struct em_data_callback em_cb = EM_DATA_CB(of_dev_pm_opp_get_cpu_power);

Hmm, so all the earlier comments regarding prototype of this routine are invalid
because of this.

>  	struct cpufreq_frequency_table *freq_table;
>  	struct opp_table *opp_table = NULL;
>  	struct private_data *priv;
> @@ -160,7 +162,7 @@ static int cpufreq_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>  	unsigned int transition_latency;
>  	bool fallback = false;
>  	const char *name;
> -	int ret;
> +	int ret, nr_opp;
>  
>  	cpu_dev = get_cpu_device(policy->cpu);
>  	if (!cpu_dev) {
> @@ -237,6 +239,7 @@ static int cpufreq_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>  		ret = -EPROBE_DEFER;
>  		goto out_free_opp;
>  	}
> +	nr_opp = ret;

Instead use nr_opp instead of ret while calling dev_pm_opp_get_opp_count().

>  
>  	if (fallback) {
>  		cpumask_setall(policy->cpus);
> @@ -280,6 +283,8 @@ static int cpufreq_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>  	policy->cpuinfo.transition_latency = transition_latency;
>  	policy->dvfs_possible_from_any_cpu = true;
>  
> +	em_register_perf_domain(policy->cpus, nr_opp, &em_cb);
> +
>  	return 0;
>  
>  out_free_cpufreq_table:
> -- 
> 2.20.1

-- 
viresh