[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20230512095743.3393563-8-lukasz.luba@arm.com>
Date: Fri, 12 May 2023 10:57:33 +0100
From: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
rafael@...nel.org
Cc: lukasz.luba@....com, dietmar.eggemann@....com, rui.zhang@...el.com,
amit.kucheria@...durent.com, amit.kachhap@...il.com,
daniel.lezcano@...aro.org, viresh.kumar@...aro.org,
len.brown@...el.com, pavel@....cz, Pierre.Gondois@....com,
ionela.voinescu@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org, mhiramat@...nel.org
Subject: [PATCH v2 07/17] PM: EM: Check if the get_cost() callback is present in em_compute_costs()
The em_compute_cost() is going to be re-used in runtime modified EM
code path. Thus, make sure that this common code is safe and won't
try to use the NULL pointer. The former em_compute_cost() didn't have to
care about runtime modification code path. The upcoming changes introduce
such option, but with different callback. Those two paths which use
get_cost() (during first EM registration) or update_power() (during
runtime modification) need to be safely handled in em_compute_costs().
Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>
---
kernel/power/energy_model.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/power/energy_model.c b/kernel/power/energy_model.c
index 61d349fec545..8866d217714e 100644
--- a/kernel/power/energy_model.c
+++ b/kernel/power/energy_model.c
@@ -119,7 +119,7 @@ static int em_compute_costs(struct device *dev, struct em_perf_state *table,
for (i = nr_states - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
unsigned long power_res, cost;
- if (flags & EM_PERF_DOMAIN_ARTIFICIAL) {
+ if (flags & EM_PERF_DOMAIN_ARTIFICIAL && cb->get_cost) {
ret = cb->get_cost(dev, table[i].frequency, &cost);
if (ret || !cost || cost > EM_MAX_POWER) {
dev_err(dev, "EM: invalid cost %lu %d\n",
--
2.25.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists