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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Tue, 29 Jan 2019 11:16:10 +0530
From:   Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@...aro.org>
To:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/9] cpufreq: Auto-register the driver as a thermal
 cooling device if asked

On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 11:06 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> 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 :)

OK, that makes more sense. Should I just send out a fixup patch or the
entire series?