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=-6.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_NEOMUTT 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 F117FC04E53 for ; Wed, 15 May 2019 09:17:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3E662084A for ; Wed, 15 May 2019 09:17:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726406AbfEOJRG (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 May 2019 05:17:06 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:38820 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725912AbfEOJRF (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 May 2019 05:17:05 -0400 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.72.51.249]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B06D341; Wed, 15 May 2019 02:17:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from queper01-lin (queper01-lin.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.195.48]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BA3A53F703; Wed, 15 May 2019 02:17:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 10:17:01 +0100 From: Quentin Perret To: Daniel Lezcano Cc: edubezval@gmail.com, rui.zhang@intel.com, javi.merino@kernel.org, viresh.kumar@linaro.org, amit.kachhap@gmail.com, rjw@rjwysocki.net, will.deacon@arm.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, ionela.voinescu@arm.com, mka@chromium.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] PM / EM: Expose perf domain struct Message-ID: <20190515091658.sbpg6qiovhtblqyr@queper01-lin> References: <20190515082318.7993-1-quentin.perret@arm.com> <20190515082318.7993-3-quentin.perret@arm.com> <0ced18eb-e424-fe6b-b11e-165a3c108170@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <0ced18eb-e424-fe6b-b11e-165a3c108170@linaro.org> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20171215 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Daniel, On Wednesday 15 May 2019 at 11:06:18 (+0200), Daniel Lezcano wrote: > On 15/05/2019 10:23, Quentin Perret wrote: > > In the current state, the perf_domain struct is fully defined only when > > CONFIG_ENERGY_MODEL=y. Since we need to write code that compiles both > > with or without that option in the thermal framework, make sure to > > actually define the struct regardless of the config option. That allows > > to avoid using stubbed accessor functions all the time in code paths > > that use the EM. > > > > Acked-by: Viresh Kumar > > Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret > > This patch implies the cpu cooling device can be set without the energy > model. > > Isn't it possible to make a strong dependency for the cpu cooling device > on the energy model option, add the energy model as default on arm arch > and drop this patch? Right, that should work too. > After all, the cpu cooling is using the em framework. The reason I did it that way is simply to keep things flexible. If you don't compile in THERMAL_GOV_POWER_ALLOCATOR, you will never use the EM for CPU thermal. So I thought it would be good to not mandate compiling in ENERGY_MODEL in this case -- that should save a bit of space. But TBH I don't have a strong opinion on this one, so if everybody agrees it's fine to just make CPU_THERMAL depend on ENERGY_MODEL, I'm happy to drop this patch and fix patch 3/3. That would indeed simplify things a bit. Thanks, Quentin