[RFC PATCH 2/5] thermal: cpu_cooling: Add notifications support for the clients
From: amit daniel kachhap <hidden>
Date: 2014-05-19 09:01:18
Also in:
linux-acpi, lkml
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 11:02 PM, Javi Merino [off-list ref] wrote:
Hi Amit, On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 03:37:57PM +0100, Amit Daniel Kachhap wrote:quoted
This patch adds notification support for those clients of cpu_cooling APIs which may want to do something interesting after receiving these cpu_cooling events. The notifier structure passed is of both Set/Get type. The notfications events can be of type, 1. CPU_COOLING_SET_STATE_PRE 2. CPU_COOLING_SET_STATE_POST 3. CPU_COOLING_GET_CUR_STATE 4. CPU_COOLING_GET_MAX_STATE The advantages of these notfications is to differentiate between different P states in the cpufreq table and the cooling states. The clients of these events may group few P states into 1 cooling states. Also some more cooling states can be enabled when the maximum of P state is reached. Post notifications can be used for those cases. Signed-off-by: Amit Daniel Kachhap <redacted> --- drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c | 99 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- include/linux/cpu_cooling.h | 55 +++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 151 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)diff --git a/drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c b/drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c index 21f44d4..e2aeb36 100644 --- a/drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c +++ b/drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c@@ -50,6 +50,7 @@ struct cpufreq_cooling_device { unsigned int cpufreq_state; unsigned int cpufreq_val; struct cpumask allowed_cpus; + struct cpufreq_cooling_status request_status; struct list_head node; }; static DEFINE_IDR(cpufreq_idr);@@ -59,6 +60,8 @@ static DEFINE_MUTEX(cooling_cpufreq_lock); #define NOTIFY_INVALID NULL static struct cpufreq_cooling_device *notify_device; +/* Notfier list to validates/updates the cpufreq cooling states */ +static BLOCKING_NOTIFIER_HEAD(cpufreq_cooling_state_notifier_list); /* A list to hold all the cpufreq cooling devices registered */ static LIST_HEAD(cpufreq_cooling_list);@@ -266,6 +269,21 @@ static unsigned int get_cpu_frequency(unsigned int cpu, unsigned long level) return freq; } +static int +cpufreq_cooling_notify_states(struct cpufreq_cooling_status *request, + enum cpu_cooling_state_ops op) +{ + /* Invoke the notifiers which have registered for this state change */ + if (op == CPU_COOLING_SET_STATE_PRE || + op == CPU_COOLING_SET_STATE_POST || + op == CPU_COOLING_GET_MAX_STATE || + op == CPU_COOLING_GET_CUR_STATE) { + blocking_notifier_call_chain( + &cpufreq_cooling_state_notifier_list, op, request); + } + return 0; +} + /** * cpufreq_apply_cooling - function to apply frequency clipping. * @cpufreq_device: cpufreq_cooling_device pointer containing frequency@@ -285,9 +303,18 @@ static int cpufreq_apply_cooling(struct cpufreq_cooling_device *cpufreq_device, struct cpumask *mask = &cpufreq_device->allowed_cpus; unsigned int cpu = cpumask_any(mask); + cpufreq_device->request_status.cur_state = + cpufreq_device->cpufreq_state; + cpufreq_device->request_status.new_state = cooling_state; + + cpufreq_cooling_notify_states(&cpufreq_device->request_status, + CPU_COOLING_SET_STATE_PRE); + + cooling_state = cpufreq_device->request_status.new_state; /* Check if the old cooling action is same as new cooling action */ - if (cpufreq_device->cpufreq_state == cooling_state) + if (cpufreq_device->cpufreq_state == + cpufreq_device->request_status.new_state) return 0; clip_freq = get_cpu_frequency(cpu, cooling_state);@@ -304,7 +331,8 @@ static int cpufreq_apply_cooling(struct cpufreq_cooling_device *cpufreq_device, } notify_device = NOTIFY_INVALID; - + cpufreq_cooling_notify_states(&cpufreq_device->request_status, + CPU_COOLING_SET_STATE_POST); return 0; }@@ -383,6 +411,11 @@ static int cpufreq_get_max_state(struct thermal_cooling_device *cdev, if (count > 0) *state = count; + cpufreq_device->request_status.max_state = count; + cpufreq_cooling_notify_states(&cpufreq_device->request_status, + CPU_COOLING_GET_MAX_STATE); + *state = cpufreq_device->request_status.max_state; +I think this should all be inside the "if (count > 0)". If not, then remove it, as it is dead code now.
yes this looks buggy. Will remove them. thanks
Cheers, Javi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html