linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 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: <20190129053618.laa6nscfvlmhhkb5@vireshk-i7>
Date:   Tue, 29 Jan 2019 11:06:18 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@...aro.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/9] cpufreq: Auto-register the driver as a thermal
 cooling device if asked

On 29-01-19, 10:25, Amit Kucheria wrote:
> All cpufreq drivers do similar things to register as a cooling device.
> Provide a cpufreq driver flag so drivers can just ask the cpufreq core
> to register the cooling device on their behalf. This allows us to get
> rid of duplicated code in the drivers.
> 
> In order to allow this, we add a struct thermal_cooling_device pointer
> to struct cpufreq_policy so that drivers don't need to store it in a
> private data structure.
> 
> Suggested-by: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>
> Suggested-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@...aro.org>
> Reviewed-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>
> Tested-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>
> Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
> ---
>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 13 +++++++++++++
>  include/linux/cpufreq.h   |  9 +++++++++
>  2 files changed, 22 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> index e35a886e00bc..0f9b50d3ee91 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@
>  
>  #include <linux/cpu.h>
>  #include <linux/cpufreq.h>
> +#include <linux/cpu_cooling.h>
>  #include <linux/delay.h>
>  #include <linux/device.h>
>  #include <linux/init.h>
> @@ -1318,6 +1319,11 @@ static int cpufreq_online(unsigned int cpu)
>  	if (cpufreq_driver->ready)
>  		cpufreq_driver->ready(policy);
>  
> +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CPU_THERMAL)
> +	if (cpufreq_driver->flags & CPUFREQ_IS_COOLING_DEV)
> +		policy->cdev = of_cpufreq_cooling_register(policy);
> +#endif

I am not sure if Rafael wanted it this way but maybe something like this:

        if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CPU_THERMAL) &&
            cpufreq_driver->flags & CPUFREQ_IS_COOLING_DEV))
		policy->cdev = of_cpufreq_cooling_register(policy);

We never wanted ifdef hackery to be in there :)

-- 
viresh