cpufreq: Migrate users of policy notifiers to QoS requests

Hello,

Now that cpufreq core supports taking QoS requests for min/max cpu
frequencies, lets migrate rest of the users to using them instead of the
policy notifiers.

The CPUFREQ_NOTIFY and CPUFREQ_ADJUST events of the policy notifiers are
removed as a result, but we have to add CPUFREQ_CREATE_POLICY and
CPUFREQ_REMOVE_POLICY events to it for the acpi stuff specifically. So
the policy notifiers aren't completely removed.

Boot tested on my x86 PC and ARM hikey board. Nothing looked broken :)

This has already gone through build bot for a few days now.

--
viresh

Viresh Kumar (10):
  cpufreq: Add policy create/remove notifiers
  video: sa1100fb: Remove cpufreq policy notifier
  video: pxafb: Remove cpufreq policy notifier
  arch_topology: Use CPUFREQ_CREATE_POLICY instead of CPUFREQ_NOTIFY
  thermal: cpu_cooling: Switch to QoS requests instead of cpufreq
    notifier
  powerpc: macintosh: Switch to QoS requests instead of cpufreq notifier
  cpufreq: powerpc_cbe: Switch to QoS requests instead of cpufreq
    notifier
  ACPI: cpufreq: Switch to QoS requests instead of cpufreq notifier
  cpufreq: Remove CPUFREQ_ADJUST and CPUFREQ_NOTIFY policy notifier
    events
  Documentation: cpufreq: Update policy notifier documentation

 Documentation/cpu-freq/core.txt            |  16 +--
 drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c            |  44 ++++++++-
 drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c           | 106 +++++++++-----------
 drivers/acpi/processor_thermal.c           |  81 ++++++++-------
 drivers/base/arch_topology.c               |   2 +-
 drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c                  |  51 ++++------
 drivers/cpufreq/ppc_cbe_cpufreq.c          |  19 +++-

14 more lines

On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 11:49 AM Viresh Kumar [off-list ref] wrote:

Hello,

Now that cpufreq core supports taking QoS requests for min/max cpu
frequencies, lets migrate rest of the users to using them instead of the
policy notifiers.

Technically, this still is linux-next only. :-)

The CPUFREQ_NOTIFY and CPUFREQ_ADJUST events of the policy notifiers are
removed as a result, but we have to add CPUFREQ_CREATE_POLICY and
CPUFREQ_REMOVE_POLICY events to it for the acpi stuff specifically. So
the policy notifiers aren't completely removed.

That's not entirely accurate, because arch_topology is going to use
CPUFREQ_CREATE_POLICY now too.

Boot tested on my x86 PC and ARM hikey board. Nothing looked broken :)

This has already gone through build bot for a few days now.

So I'd prefer patches [5-8] to go right after the first one and then
do the cleanups on top of that, as somebody may want to backport the
essential changes without the cleanups.

On 16-07-19, 12:06, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 11:49 AM Viresh Kumar [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Hello,

Now that cpufreq core supports taking QoS requests for min/max cpu
frequencies, lets migrate rest of the users to using them instead of the
policy notifiers.

Technically, this still is linux-next only. :-)

True :)

quoted

The CPUFREQ_NOTIFY and CPUFREQ_ADJUST events of the policy notifiers are
removed as a result, but we have to add CPUFREQ_CREATE_POLICY and
CPUFREQ_REMOVE_POLICY events to it for the acpi stuff specifically. So
the policy notifiers aren't completely removed.

That's not entirely accurate, because arch_topology is going to use
CPUFREQ_CREATE_POLICY now too.

Yeah, I thought about that while writing this patchset and
coverletter. But had it not been required for ACPI, I would have done
it differently for the arch-topology code. Maybe direct calling of
arch-topology routine from cpufreq core. I wanted to get rid of the
policy notifiers completely but I couldn't find a better way of doing
it for ACPI stuff.

quoted

Boot tested on my x86 PC and ARM hikey board. Nothing looked broken :)

This has already gone through build bot for a few days now.

So I'd prefer patches [5-8] to go right after the first one and then
do the cleanups on top of that, as somebody may want to backport the
essential changes without the cleanups.

In the exceptional case where nobody finds anything wrong with the
patches (highly unlikely), do you want me to resend with reordering or
you can reorder them while applying? There are no dependencies between
those patches anyway.

--
viresh

On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 12:14 PM Viresh Kumar [off-list ref] wrote:

On 16-07-19, 12:06, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 11:49 AM Viresh Kumar [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Hello,

Now that cpufreq core supports taking QoS requests for min/max cpu
frequencies, lets migrate rest of the users to using them instead of the
policy notifiers.

Technically, this still is linux-next only. :-)

True :)

quoted

quoted

The CPUFREQ_NOTIFY and CPUFREQ_ADJUST events of the policy notifiers are
removed as a result, but we have to add CPUFREQ_CREATE_POLICY and
CPUFREQ_REMOVE_POLICY events to it for the acpi stuff specifically. So
the policy notifiers aren't completely removed.

That's not entirely accurate, because arch_topology is going to use
CPUFREQ_CREATE_POLICY now too.

Yeah, I thought about that while writing this patchset and
coverletter. But had it not been required for ACPI, I would have done
it differently for the arch-topology code. Maybe direct calling of
arch-topology routine from cpufreq core. I wanted to get rid of the
policy notifiers completely but I couldn't find a better way of doing
it for ACPI stuff.

quoted

quoted

Boot tested on my x86 PC and ARM hikey board. Nothing looked broken :)

This has already gone through build bot for a few days now.

So I'd prefer patches [5-8] to go right after the first one and then
do the cleanups on top of that, as somebody may want to backport the
essential changes without the cleanups.

In the exceptional case where nobody finds anything wrong with the
patches (highly unlikely), do you want me to resend with reordering or
you can reorder them while applying? There are no dependencies between

1 more quoted lines

Please resend the reordered set when the merge window closes.