[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YRPN8zjp1wqkHg6t@google.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2021 14:17:39 +0100
From: Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@....com>,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 9/9] cpufreq: scmi: Use .register_em() callback
On Wednesday 11 Aug 2021 at 17:28:47 (+0530), Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Set the newly added .register_em() callback to register with the EM
> after the cpufreq policy is properly initialized.
>
> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/scmi-cpufreq.c | 55 ++++++++++++++++++++--------------
> 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/scmi-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/scmi-cpufreq.c
> index 75f818d04b48..b916c9e22921 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/scmi-cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/scmi-cpufreq.c
> @@ -22,7 +22,9 @@
>
> struct scmi_data {
> int domain_id;
> + int nr_opp;
> struct device *cpu_dev;
> + cpumask_var_t opp_shared_cpus;
Can we use policy->related_cpus and friends directly in the callback
instead? That should simplify the patch a bit.
Also, we can probably afford calling dev_pm_opp_get_opp_count() from the
em_register callback as it is not a hot path, which would avoid wasting
some 'resident' memory here that is only used during init.
Thanks,
Quentin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists