linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] ACPI: Split out processor thermal register from ACPI PSS

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <TYWP286MB2601A179E1973C5B94E231CFB1AF9@TYWP286MB2601.JPNP286.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Date:   Fri, 17 Jun 2022 09:35:19 +0800
From:   Riwen Lu <luriwen@...mail.com>
To:     Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@...edance.com>
Cc:     rafael@...nel.org, lenb@...nel.org, rui.zhang@...el.com,
        robert.moore@...el.com, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Riwen Lu <luriwen@...inos.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ACPI: Split out processor thermal register from ACPI
 PSS

在 2022/6/16 22:56, Punit Agrawal 写道:
> Hi Riwen,
> 
> Usually it's a good practice to Cc anybody who has commented on previous
> versions. It makes it easier to follow your updates.
Hi Punit,

Sorry. I wanted to Cc to you, but I forgot it. I'll make the patch a v3 
version and Cc you.

Thanks!
> 
> A couple of comments below.
> 
> Riwen Lu <luriwen@...mail.com> writes:
> 
>> From: Riwen Lu <luriwen@...inos.cn>
>>
>> Commit 239708a3af44 ("ACPI: Split out ACPI PSS from ACPI Processor
>> driver"), moves processor thermal registration to acpi_pss_perf_init(),
>> which doesn't get executed if ACPI_CPU_FREQ_PSS is not enabled.
>>
>> As ARM64 supports P-states using CPPC, it should be possible to also
>> support processor passive cooling even if PSS is not enabled. Split
>> out the processor thermal cooling register from ACPI PSS to support
>> this, and move it into a separate function in processor_thermal.c.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Riwen Lu <luriwen@...inos.cn>
>> ---
>>   drivers/acpi/Kconfig             |  2 +-
>>   drivers/acpi/Makefile            |  5 +--
>>   drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c  | 72 ++++----------------------------
>>   drivers/acpi/processor_thermal.c | 69 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>   include/acpi/processor.h         |  6 ++-
>>   5 files changed, 84 insertions(+), 70 deletions(-)
>>
> 
> [...]
> 
>> --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c
>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c
> 
> [...]
> 
>> @@ -239,7 +183,7 @@ static int __acpi_processor_start(struct acpi_device *device)
>>   		return 0;
>>   
>>   	result = -ENODEV;
>> -	acpi_pss_perf_exit(pr, device);
>> +	acpi_processor_thermal_exit(pr);
>>   
>>   err_power_exit:
>>   	acpi_processor_power_exit(pr);
>> @@ -277,10 +221,10 @@ static int acpi_processor_stop(struct device *dev)
>>   		return 0;
>>   	acpi_processor_power_exit(pr);
>>   
>> -	acpi_pss_perf_exit(pr, device);
>> -
>>   	acpi_cppc_processor_exit(pr);
>>   
>> +	acpi_processor_thermal_exit(pr);
>> +
>>   	return 0;
>>   }
>>   
>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_thermal.c b/drivers/acpi/processor_thermal.c
>> index d8b2dfcd59b5..93928db2ae5f 100644
>> --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_thermal.c
>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_thermal.c
>> @@ -266,3 +266,72 @@ const struct thermal_cooling_device_ops processor_cooling_ops = {
>>   	.get_cur_state = processor_get_cur_state,
>>   	.set_cur_state = processor_set_cur_state,
>>   };
>> +
>> +int acpi_processor_thermal_init(struct acpi_processor *pr)
>> +{
>> +	struct acpi_device *device;
>> +	int result = 0;
>> +
>> +	if (!pr)
>> +		return -ENODEV;
> 
> What's the reason for this check? When will "pr" be NULL in this code
> path?
> 
I was thinking the function might be called somewhere else. It seems to 
be meaningless.
>> +
>> +	device = acpi_fetch_acpi_dev(pr->handle);
>> +	if (!device)
>> +		return -ENODEV;
> 
> Wouldn't it be better to pass the acpi_device into the function as well?
> The device is already available in the caller and it'll avoid having to
> convert it back.
> 
The same reason as above, and I'll modify it.
>> +
>> +	pr->cdev = thermal_cooling_device_register("Processor", device,
>> +						   &processor_cooling_ops);
>> +	if (IS_ERR(pr->cdev)) {
>> +		result = PTR_ERR(pr->cdev);
>> +		return result;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	dev_dbg(&device->dev, "registered as cooling_device%d\n",
>> +		pr->cdev->id);
>> +
>> +	result = sysfs_create_link(&device->dev.kobj,
>> +				   &pr->cdev->device.kobj,
>> +				   "thermal_cooling");
>> +	if (result) {
>> +		dev_err(&device->dev,
>> +			"Failed to create sysfs link 'thermal_cooling'\n");
>> +		goto err_thermal_unregister;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	result = sysfs_create_link(&pr->cdev->device.kobj,
>> +				   &device->dev.kobj,
>> +				   "device");
>> +	if (result) {
>> +		dev_err(&pr->cdev->device,
>> +			"Failed to create sysfs link 'device'\n");
>> +		goto err_remove_sysfs_thermal;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	return 0;
>> +
>> +err_remove_sysfs_thermal:
>> +	sysfs_remove_link(&device->dev.kobj, "thermal_cooling");
>> +err_thermal_unregister:
>> +	thermal_cooling_device_unregister(pr->cdev);
>> +
>> +	return result;
>> +}
>> +
>> +void acpi_processor_thermal_exit(struct acpi_processor *pr)
>> +{
>> +	struct acpi_device *device;
>> +
>> +	if (!pr)
>> +		return;
>> +
>> +	device = acpi_fetch_acpi_dev(pr->handle);
>> +	if (!device)
>> +		return;
> 
> The same comment about passing the acpi_device structure applies here as
> well.
> 
>> +
>> +	if (pr->cdev) {
>> +		sysfs_remove_link(&device->dev.kobj, "thermal_cooling");
>> +		sysfs_remove_link(&pr->cdev->device.kobj, "device");
>> +		thermal_cooling_device_unregister(pr->cdev);
>> +		pr->cdev = NULL;
>> +	}
>> +}
> 
> [...]