| Message ID | cover.1548084260.git.amit.kucheria@linaro.org |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | cpufreq: Add flag to auto-register as cooling | expand |
On 21-01-19, 21:10, Amit Kucheria wrote: > The CPU cooling driver (cpu_cooling.c) allows the platform's cpufreq > driver to register as a cooling device and cool down the platform by > throttling the CPU frequency. In order to be able to auto-register a > cpufreq driver as a cooling device from the cpufreq core, we need access > to code inside cpu_cooling.c which, in turn, accesses code inside > thermal core. > > CPU_FREQ is a bool while THERMAL is tristate. In some configurations > (e.g. allmodconfig), CONFIG_THERMAL ends up as a module while > CONFIG_CPU_FREQ is compiled in. This leads to following error: > > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.o: In function `cpufreq_offline': > cpufreq.c:(.text+0x407c): undefined reference to `cpufreq_cooling_unregister' > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.o: In function `cpufreq_online': > cpufreq.c:(.text+0x70c0): undefined reference to `of_cpufreq_cooling_register' > > Given that platforms using CPU_THERMAL usually want it compiled-in so it > is available early in boot, make CPU_THERMAL depend on THERMAL being > compiled-in instead of allowing it to be a module. > > Suggested-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> > Signed-off-by: Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@linaro.org> > --- > drivers/thermal/Kconfig | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/thermal/Kconfig b/drivers/thermal/Kconfig > index 30323426902e..58bb7d72dc2b 100644 > --- a/drivers/thermal/Kconfig > +++ b/drivers/thermal/Kconfig > @@ -152,6 +152,7 @@ config CPU_THERMAL > bool "generic cpu cooling support" > depends on CPU_FREQ > depends on THERMAL_OF > + depends on THERMAL=y > help > This implements the generic cpu cooling mechanism through frequency > reduction. An ACPI version of this already exists Please remove all Kconfig crap, which gets fixed with this, as well in this patch itself. Like: diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig.arm b/drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig.arm index 10bc5c798d17..40f8cc323996 100644 --- a/drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig.arm +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig.arm @@ -40,8 +40,6 @@ config ARM_ARMADA_8K_CPUFREQ config ARM_BIG_LITTLE_CPUFREQ tristate "Generic ARM big LITTLE CPUfreq driver" depends on ARM_CPU_TOPOLOGY && HAVE_CLK - # if CPU_THERMAL is on and THERMAL=m, ARM_BIT_LITTLE_CPUFREQ cannot be =y - depends on !CPU_THERMAL || THERMAL select PM_OPP help This enables the Generic CPUfreq driver for ARM big.LITTLE platforms. -- viresh
On 21-01-19, 21:10, Amit Kucheria wrote: > @@ -151,6 +152,11 @@ struct cpufreq_policy { > > /* For cpufreq driver's internal use */ > void *driver_data; > + > +#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_THERMAL > + /* Pointer to the cooling device if used for thermal mitigation */ > + struct thermal_cooling_device *cdev; > +#endif > }; > > /* Only for ACPI */ > @@ -386,6 +392,12 @@ struct cpufreq_driver { > */ > #define CPUFREQ_NO_AUTO_DYNAMIC_SWITCHING BIT(6) > > +/* > + * Set by drivers that want the core to automatically register the cpufreq > + * driver as a thermal cooling device. > + */ > +#define CPUFREQ_AUTO_REGISTER_COOLING_DEV BIT(7) > + > int cpufreq_register_driver(struct cpufreq_driver *driver_data); > int cpufreq_unregister_driver(struct cpufreq_driver *driver_data); > > @@ -415,6 +427,19 @@ cpufreq_verify_within_cpu_limits(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) > policy->cpuinfo.max_freq); > } > > +#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_THERMAL > +static inline void register_cooling_device(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) { > + policy->cdev = of_cpufreq_cooling_register(policy); > +} > + > +static inline void unregister_cooling_device(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) { > + cpufreq_cooling_unregister(policy->cdev); > + policy->cdev = NULL; > +} > +#else > +static inline void register_cooling_device(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) {} > +static inline void unregister_cooling_device(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) {} > +#endif The whole ifdef hackery here saves space for a pointer per policy. Just get rid of it, it isn't worth it. -- viresh
On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 11:44 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote: > > On 23-01-19, 16:13, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > On 23-01-19, 11:39, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 11:36 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 21-01-19, 21:10, Amit Kucheria wrote: > > > > > @@ -151,6 +152,11 @@ struct cpufreq_policy { > > > > > > > > > > /* For cpufreq driver's internal use */ > > > > > void *driver_data; > > > > > + > > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_THERMAL > > > > > + /* Pointer to the cooling device if used for thermal mitigation */ > > > > > + struct thermal_cooling_device *cdev; > > > > > +#endif > > > > > }; > > > > > > > > > > /* Only for ACPI */ > > > > > @@ -386,6 +392,12 @@ struct cpufreq_driver { > > > > > */ > > > > > #define CPUFREQ_NO_AUTO_DYNAMIC_SWITCHING BIT(6) > > > > > > > > > > +/* > > > > > + * Set by drivers that want the core to automatically register the cpufreq > > > > > + * driver as a thermal cooling device. > > > > > + */ > > > > > +#define CPUFREQ_AUTO_REGISTER_COOLING_DEV BIT(7) > > > > > + > > > > > int cpufreq_register_driver(struct cpufreq_driver *driver_data); > > > > > int cpufreq_unregister_driver(struct cpufreq_driver *driver_data); > > > > > > > > > > @@ -415,6 +427,19 @@ cpufreq_verify_within_cpu_limits(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) > > > > > policy->cpuinfo.max_freq); > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_THERMAL > > > > > +static inline void register_cooling_device(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) { > > > > > + policy->cdev = of_cpufreq_cooling_register(policy); > > > > > +} > > > > > + > > > > > +static inline void unregister_cooling_device(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) { > > > > > + cpufreq_cooling_unregister(policy->cdev); > > > > > + policy->cdev = NULL; > > > > > +} > > > > > +#else > > > > > +static inline void register_cooling_device(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) {} > > > > > +static inline void unregister_cooling_device(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) {} > > > > > +#endif > > > > > > > > The whole ifdef hackery here saves space for a pointer per policy. > > > > Just get rid of it, it isn't worth it. > > > > > > Is struct thermal_cooling_device defined if CONFIG_THERMAL is unset? > > > > No and it is defined in thermal.h without any ifdef stuff. > > I meant it is always available and doesn't depend on CONFIG_THERMAL. OK I guess we can live with an extra unused pointer per policy on platforms with CONFIG_CPU_THERMAL unset.
On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 11:53 AM Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@linaro.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 4:04 PM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > On 21-01-19, 21:10, Amit Kucheria wrote: > > > The CPU cooling driver (cpu_cooling.c) allows the platform's cpufreq > > > driver to register as a cooling device and cool down the platform by > > > throttling the CPU frequency. In order to be able to auto-register a > > > cpufreq driver as a cooling device from the cpufreq core, we need access > > > to code inside cpu_cooling.c which, in turn, accesses code inside > > > thermal core. > > > > > > CPU_FREQ is a bool while THERMAL is tristate. In some configurations > > > (e.g. allmodconfig), CONFIG_THERMAL ends up as a module while > > > CONFIG_CPU_FREQ is compiled in. This leads to following error: > > > > > > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.o: In function `cpufreq_offline': > > > cpufreq.c:(.text+0x407c): undefined reference to `cpufreq_cooling_unregister' > > > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.o: In function `cpufreq_online': > > > cpufreq.c:(.text+0x70c0): undefined reference to `of_cpufreq_cooling_register' > > > > > > Given that platforms using CPU_THERMAL usually want it compiled-in so it > > > is available early in boot, make CPU_THERMAL depend on THERMAL being > > > compiled-in instead of allowing it to be a module. > > > > > > Suggested-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> > > > Signed-off-by: Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@linaro.org> > > > --- > > > drivers/thermal/Kconfig | 1 + > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/thermal/Kconfig b/drivers/thermal/Kconfig > > > index 30323426902e..58bb7d72dc2b 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/thermal/Kconfig > > > +++ b/drivers/thermal/Kconfig > > > @@ -152,6 +152,7 @@ config CPU_THERMAL > > > bool "generic cpu cooling support" > > > depends on CPU_FREQ > > > depends on THERMAL_OF > > > + depends on THERMAL=y > > > help > > > This implements the generic cpu cooling mechanism through frequency > > > reduction. An ACPI version of this already exists > > > > Please remove all Kconfig crap, which gets fixed with this, as well in > > this patch itself. Like: > > OK, I planned to if/when this series was accepted. Will send out a patch. You can make it part of this series, though.