Thread (23 messages) 23 messages, 4 authors, 2020-01-22

Re: [PATCH 1/4] PM / EM: and devices to Energy Model

From: Quentin Perret <hidden>
Date: 2020-01-20 15:28:11
Also in: dri-devel, linux-arm-msm, linux-mediatek, linux-omap, linux-pm, lkml

On Monday 20 Jan 2020 at 15:53:35 (+0100), Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
Would be really nice if this wouldn't be required. We should really aim
for 1 framework == 1 set of interfaces.

What happens if someone calls em_get_pd() on a CPU EM?

E.g:

 static struct perf_domain *pd_init(int cpu)
 {
-       struct em_perf_domain *obj = em_cpu_get(cpu);
+       struct device *dev = get_cpu_device(cpu);
+       struct em_perf_domain *obj = em_pd_get(dev);
        struct perf_domain *pd;

Two versions of one functionality will confuse API user from the
beginning ...
Agreed, this looks a bit confusing. It should be trivial to make
em_dev_get() (or whatever we end up calling it) work for CPUs too,
though. And we could always have a em_cpu_get(int cpu) API that is a
basically a wrapper around em_dev_get() for convenience.

Thanks,
Quentin

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help