Hi Daniel,

On Wednesday 15 May 2019 at 11:06:18 (+0200), Daniel Lezcano wrote:

On 15/05/2019 10:23, Quentin Perret wrote:

quoted

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 <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret <redacted>

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

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel