From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FB98C4338F for ; Tue, 10 Aug 2021 10:05:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6810460F25 for ; Tue, 10 Aug 2021 10:05:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233234AbhHJKF0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Aug 2021 06:05:26 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]:52810 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232974AbhHJKFZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Aug 2021 06:05:25 -0400 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CFFC6D; Tue, 10 Aug 2021 03:05:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.57.9.181] (unknown [10.57.9.181]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BE0B83F70D; Tue, 10 Aug 2021 03:05:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] cpufreq: vexpress: Use auto-registration for energy model To: Viresh Kumar Cc: Rafael Wysocki , Vincent Donnefort , Sudeep Holla , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Vincent Guittot , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org References: <87fecd84e3f6ff6f153be14b0d53de93c0b04ae6.1628579170.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org> From: Lukasz Luba Message-ID: Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2021 11:05:00 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87fecd84e3f6ff6f153be14b0d53de93c0b04ae6.1628579170.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On 8/10/21 8:36 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > Use the CPUFREQ_REGISTER_WITH_EM flag to allow cpufreq core to > automatically register with the energy model. > > This allows removal of boiler plate code from the driver and fixes the > unregistration part as well. > > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar > --- > drivers/cpufreq/vexpress-spc-cpufreq.c | 5 ++--- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/vexpress-spc-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/vexpress-spc-cpufreq.c > index 51dfa9ae6cf5..28c4c3254337 100644 > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/vexpress-spc-cpufreq.c > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/vexpress-spc-cpufreq.c > @@ -442,8 +442,6 @@ static int ve_spc_cpufreq_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) > policy->freq_table = freq_table[cur_cluster]; > policy->cpuinfo.transition_latency = 1000000; /* 1 ms */ > > - dev_pm_opp_of_register_em(cpu_dev, policy->cpus); > - > if (is_bL_switching_enabled()) > per_cpu(cpu_last_req_freq, policy->cpu) = > clk_get_cpu_rate(policy->cpu); > @@ -487,7 +485,8 @@ static void ve_spc_cpufreq_ready(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) > static struct cpufreq_driver ve_spc_cpufreq_driver = { > .name = "vexpress-spc", > .flags = CPUFREQ_HAVE_GOVERNOR_PER_POLICY | > - CPUFREQ_NEED_INITIAL_FREQ_CHECK, > + CPUFREQ_NEED_INITIAL_FREQ_CHECK | > + CPUFREQ_REGISTER_WITH_EM, > .verify = cpufreq_generic_frequency_table_verify, > .target_index = ve_spc_cpufreq_set_target, > .get = ve_spc_cpufreq_get_rate, > I can see that this driver calls explicitly the of_cpufreq_cooling_register() It does this in the cpufreq_driver->ready() callback implementation: ve_spc_cpufreq_ready() With that in mind, the new code in the patch 1/8, which registers the EM, should be called even earlier, above: ---------------------8<--------------------------------- /* Callback for handling stuff after policy is ready */ if (cpufreq_driver->ready) cpufreq_driver->ready(policy); ------------------->8---------------------------------- This also triggered a question: If this new flag can be set in the cpufreq driver which hasn't set CPUFREQ_IS_COOLING_DEV ? I can only see one driver (this one in the patch) which has such configuration.