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 D65FAC04E53 for ; Wed, 15 May 2019 10:07:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1F2020881 for ; Wed, 15 May 2019 10:07:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726466AbfEOKHz (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 May 2019 06:07:55 -0400 Received: from usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:39938 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726032AbfEOKHz (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 May 2019 06:07:55 -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 C589880D; Wed, 15 May 2019 03:07:54 -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 456573F703; Wed, 15 May 2019 03:07:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 11:07:50 +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: <20190515100748.q3t4kt72h2akdpcs@queper01-lin> References: <20190515082318.7993-1-quentin.perret@arm.com> <20190515082318.7993-3-quentin.perret@arm.com> <0ced18eb-e424-fe6b-b11e-165a3c108170@linaro.org> <20190515091658.sbpg6qiovhtblqyr@queper01-lin> <698400c0-e0a4-4a86-b9df-cdb9bd683c0f@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <698400c0-e0a4-4a86-b9df-cdb9bd683c0f@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 On Wednesday 15 May 2019 at 11:56:30 (+0200), Daniel Lezcano wrote: > On 15/05/2019 11:17, Quentin Perret wrote: > > 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. > > Ok in this case it will be better to drop the 2/3 and add a small series > doing for the cpu_cooling.c > > #ifdef CONFIG_THERMAL_GOV_POWER_ALLOCATOR > > /* structure freq */ > > /* power2state */ > > /* state2power*/ > > /* getrequestedpower */ > > /* All functions needed for the above */ > > #endif > > static struct thermal_cooling_device_ops cpufreq_cooling_ops = { > .get_max_state = cpufreq_get_max_state, > .get_cur_state = cpufreq_get_cur_state, > .set_cur_state = cpufreq_set_cur_state, > #ifdef CONFIG_THERMAL_GOV_POWER_ALLOCATOR > .get_requested_power = cpufreq_get_requested_power, > .state2power = cpufreq_state2power, > .power2state = cpufreq_power2state, > #endif > }; > > So you don't have to care about ENERGY_MODEL to be set as > THERMAL_GOV_POWER_ALLOCATOR depends on it. > > I think the result for cpu_cooling.c will be even more cleaner with the > em change. OK, that works for me. I'll give it a go in v5. Thanks ! Quentin