Re: [PATCH 1/1] thermal: cpu_cooling: check for the readiness of cpufreq layer
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Date: 2014-11-27 04:08:42
Also in:
linux-arm-kernel, linux-pm, linux-samsung-soc, lkml
Few nits.. On 26 November 2014 at 23:20, Eduardo Valentin [off-list ref] wrote:
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com> ---
The normal practice is to write the non-commitable part here ...
drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c | 5 +++++ drivers/thermal/db8500_cpufreq_cooling.c | 5 ----- drivers/thermal/imx_thermal.c | 5 ----- drivers/thermal/samsung/exynos_thermal_common.c | 2 +- drivers/thermal/ti-soc-thermal/ti-thermal-common.c | 6 ------ 5 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) ---
But this works as well :)
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
This is attempt to organize the cpu cooling vs. cpufreq boot sequencing. The main change in this patch, as in the commit log, is to have the check for the cpufreq layer in the cpu cooling device registration, instead of in thermal drivers. This way, drivers don't need to bother about it, they just need to propagate the error value. This change was tested on top of: (0) - Viresh's change in cpufreq layer and cpufreq-dt (up to patch 4): https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/5384141/ https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/5384151/ https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/5384161/ https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/5384171/ (1) - fix of thermal core: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/5326991/ After Viresh's changes, cpufreq-dt is properly sequenced with cpu cooling registration. Non-of based drivers also should take advantage if these changes, as now they do not need to check for cpufreq layer. The check is where it belongs, in cpu cooling device registration. BR, Eduardo Valentindiff --git a/drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c b/drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c index 1ab0018..9e6945b 100644 --- a/drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c +++ b/drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c@@ -440,6 +440,11 @@ __cpufreq_cooling_register(struct device_node *np, int ret = 0, i; struct cpufreq_policy policy; + if (!cpufreq_get_current_driver() || !cpufreq_frequency_get_table(0)) {
Only !cpufreq_frequency_get_table(0) is enough here. For rest: Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>