From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Quentin Perret Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] cpufreq: dt: Register an Energy Model Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 09:10:43 +0000 Message-ID: <20190129091041.et46clxo3lci34xf@queper01-lin> References: <20190128165522.31749-1-quentin.perret@arm.com> <20190128165522.31749-3-quentin.perret@arm.com> <20190129053041.ymyhfusj6eimpxfu@vireshk-i7> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190129053041.ymyhfusj6eimpxfu@vireshk-i7> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Viresh Kumar Cc: rjw@rjwysocki.net, sudeep.holla@arm.com, liviu.dudau@arm.com, lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com, robh+dt@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, nm@ti.com, sboyd@kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, mka@chromium.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday 29 Jan 2019 at 11:00:41 (+0530), Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 28-01-19, 16:55, Quentin Perret wrote: > > Now that PM_OPP provides a helper function to estimate the power > > consumed by CPUs, make sure to try and register an Energy Model (EM) > > from cpufreq-dt, hence ensuring interested subsystems (the task > > scheduler, for example) can make use of that information when available. > > > > Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret > > --- > > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt.c | 7 ++++++- > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt.c > > index e58bfcb1169e..7556e07e7a9f 100644 > > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt.c > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt.c > > @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ > > #include > > #include > > #include > > +#include > > #include > > #include > > #include > > @@ -152,6 +153,7 @@ static int resources_available(void) > > > > static int cpufreq_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) > > { > > + struct em_data_callback em_cb = EM_DATA_CB(of_dev_pm_opp_get_cpu_power); > > Hmm, so all the earlier comments regarding prototype of this routine are invalid > because of this. Right. > > > struct cpufreq_frequency_table *freq_table; > > struct opp_table *opp_table = NULL; > > struct private_data *priv; > > @@ -160,7 +162,7 @@ static int cpufreq_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) > > unsigned int transition_latency; > > bool fallback = false; > > const char *name; > > - int ret; > > + int ret, nr_opp; > > > > cpu_dev = get_cpu_device(policy->cpu); > > if (!cpu_dev) { > > @@ -237,6 +239,7 @@ static int cpufreq_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) > > ret = -EPROBE_DEFER; > > goto out_free_opp; > > } > > + nr_opp = ret; > > Instead use nr_opp instead of ret while calling dev_pm_opp_get_opp_count(). Will do. > > > > > if (fallback) { > > cpumask_setall(policy->cpus); > > @@ -280,6 +283,8 @@ static int cpufreq_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) > > policy->cpuinfo.transition_latency = transition_latency; > > policy->dvfs_possible_from_any_cpu = true; > > > > + em_register_perf_domain(policy->cpus, nr_opp, &em_cb); > > + > > return 0; > > > > out_free_cpufreq_table: > > -- > > 2.20.1 > > -- > viresh Thanks, Quentin