[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200423151250.GB65632@linaro.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2020 17:12:50 +0200
From: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
To: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-imx@....com, Dietmar.Eggemann@....com, cw00.choi@...sung.com,
b.zolnierkie@...sung.com, rjw@...ysocki.net, sudeep.holla@....com,
viresh.kumar@...aro.org, nm@...com, sboyd@...nel.org,
rui.zhang@...el.com, amit.kucheria@...durent.com, mingo@...hat.com,
peterz@...radead.org, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
qperret@...gle.com, bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de,
shawnguo@...nel.org, s.hauer@...gutronix.de, festevam@...il.com,
kernel@...gutronix.de, khilman@...nel.org, agross@...nel.org,
bjorn.andersson@...aro.org, robh@...nel.org,
matthias.bgg@...il.com, steven.price@....com,
tomeu.vizoso@...labora.com, alyssa.rosenzweig@...labora.com,
airlied@...ux.ie, daniel@...ll.ch, liviu.dudau@....com,
lorenzo.pieralisi@....com, patrick.bellasi@...bug.net,
orjan.eide@....com, rdunlap@...radead.org, mka@...omium.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 04/10] PM / EM: add support for other devices than
CPUs in Energy Model
On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 09:42:04AM +0100, Lukasz Luba wrote:
> Add support for other devices that CPUs. The registration function
> does not require a valid cpumask pointer and is ready to handle new
> devices. Some of the internal structures has been reorganized in order to
> keep consistent view (like removing per_cpu pd pointers). To track usage
> of the Energy Model structures, they are protected with kref.
Why not add the energy model structure in the struct device directly?
For instance for the em_cpu_get() function, the cpu id allows to retrieve the
cpu device and then from there, the energy model instead of browsing another
list. The em_device life cycle will be tied to the struct device.
Then when the struct device and the em_device are connected, add the debugfs
with a struct device list for those which are energy aware, so you end up with
a structure:
struct em_device {
struct device *dev;
struct list_head em_dev_list;
};
(a global single dentry for debugfs to do a recursive delete is enough).
Locks when inspecting and add/removal called from the struct device release
function. So no need of an extra refcounting.
Does it make sense?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists