Thread (19 messages) 19 messages, 3 authors, 2021-08-11

Re: [PATCH 0/8] cpufreq: Auto-register with energy model

From: Quentin Perret <hidden>
Date: 2021-08-10 13:53:31
Also in: linux-arm-kernel, linux-arm-msm, linux-omap, linux-pm, lkml

On Tuesday 10 Aug 2021 at 14:25:15 (+0100), Lukasz Luba wrote:
The way I see this is that the flag in cpufreq avoids
mistakes potentially made by driver developer. It will automaticaly
register the *simple* EM model via dev_pm_opp_of_register_em() on behalf
of drivers (which is already done manually by drivers). The developer
would just set the flag similarly to CPUFREQ_IS_COOLING_DEV and be sure
it will register at the right time. Well tested flag approach should be
safer, easier to understand, maintain.
I would agree with all that if calling dev_pm_opp_of_register_em() was
complicated, but that is not really the case. I don't think we ever call
PM_OPP directly from cpufreq core ATM, which makes a lot of sense if you
consider PM_OPP arch-specific. I could understand that we might accept a
little 'violation' of the abstraction with this series if there were
real benefits, but I just don't see them.

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