That's what it is for, lets name it properly.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
That's what it is for, lets name it properly.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
We just need to take care of single event here and there is no need to
increase indentation level of most of the code (which causes lines
longer that 80 columns to break).
Kill the switch block.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
If a valid cpufreq_dev is found for policy->cpu, we should update the
policy and quit the for loop. There is no need to keep traversing the
list of cpufreq_dev's.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
Its always set before getting used, don't initialize it.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
Ensure that the CPU for which the frequency is being requested
is online. If none of the CPUs are online the requested power is
returned as 0.
Acked-by: Javi Merino <javi.merino@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Kapileshwar Singh <kapileshwar.singh@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
It was initially understood that an update to the cpu_device
(cached in cpufreq_cooling_device) was required to ascertain the
correct operating point of the device on a cpufreq policy->cpu update
or creation or deletion of a cpufreq policy.
(e.g. when the existing policy CPU goes offline).
This update is not required and it is possible to ascertain the OPPs
from the leading CPU in a cpufreq domain even if the CPU is hotplugged out.
Fixes: e0128d8ab423 ("thermal: cpu_cooling: implement the power cooling device API")
Acked-by: Javi Merino <javi.merino@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Kapileshwar Singh <kapileshwar.singh@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
We allocate the power_table in memory but we don't test whether the
allocation succeeded. Return -ENOMEM if kcalloc() fails.
Fixes: e0128d8ab423 ("thermal: cpu_cooling: implement the power cooling device API")
Cc: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
Cc: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>
Reported-by: kbuild test robot <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Javi Merino <javi.merino@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
Add trace events for the power allocator governor and the power actor
interface of the cpu cooling device.
Cc: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>
Cc: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Acked-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Signed-off-by: Javi Merino <javi.merino@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
Add a basic power model to the cpu cooling device to implement the
power cooling device API. The power model uses the current frequency,
current load and OPPs for the power calculations. The cpus must have
registered their OPPs using the OPP library.
Cc: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>
Cc: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Kapileshwar Singh <kapileshwar.singh@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Javi Merino <javi.merino@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
The node field of struct cpufreq_cooling_device was reintroduced in
2dcd851fe4 (thermal: cpu_cooling: Update always cpufreq policy with
thermal constraints) but without the documentation that it once had.
Add it back so that all the fields of struct cpufreq_cooling_device
are documented.
Cc: Yadwinder Singh Brar <yadi.brar@samsung.com>
Cc: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
Cc: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Javi Merino <javi.merino@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>
There was a left over return here so the error handling isn't run.
It leads to a small memory leak and a static checker warning.
drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c:351 __cpufreq_cooling_register()
info: ignoring unreachable code.
Fixes: f6859014c7 ("thermal: cpu_cooling: Store frequencies in descending order")
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
Adding my copyright information for two purposes:
- To get cc'd for future patches to review (Only if people read this header
while sending mail)
- Have done enough changes to earn a place here?
Cc: Amit Daniel Kachhap <amit.daniel@samsung.com>
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
get_property() was an over complicated beast with BUGs. It used to believe that
cpufreq table is present in ascending or descending order, which might not
always be true.
Previous patch has created another freq table in descending order for us and we
better use it now. With that get_property() simply goes away and another helper
get_level() comes in.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
CPUFreq framework *doesn't* guarantee that frequencies present in cpufreq table
will be in ascending or descending order. But cpu_cooling somehow assumes that.
Probably because most of current users are creating this list from DT, which is
done with the help of OPP layer. And OPP layer creates the list in ascending
order of frequencies.
But cpu_cooling can be used for other platforms too, which don't have
frequencies arranged in any order.
This patch tries to fix this issue by creating another list of valid frequencies
in descending order. Care is also taken to throw warnings for duplicate entries.
Later patches would use it to simplify code.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
We already know the value of 'cpufreq_dev->max_level' and so there is no need
calculating that once again. For this, we need to send 'cpufreq_dev' to
get_property().
Make all necessary changes for this change. Because cpufreq_cooling_get_level()
doesn't have access to 'cpufreq_dev', it is updated to iterate over the list of
cpufreq_cooling_devices to get cooling device for the cpu number passed to it.
This also makes it robust to return levels only for the CPU registered via a
cooling device. We don't have to support anything that isn't registered yet.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
As we already have a list of cpufreq_cooling_devices now, lets use it instead of
a local counter.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
We don't use get_property() to find max levels anymore as it is done at boot
now. So, don't support GET_MAXL in get_property().
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
CPU frequency tables don't update after the driver is registered and so we don't
need to iterate over them to find total number of states every time
cpufreq_get_max_state() is called. Do it once at boot time.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
get_cpu_frequency() isn't doing much by itself, just calling get_property(). And
so this wrapper isn't required at all. Get rid of it.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
cpufreq_apply_cooling() has a single caller, cpufreq_set_cur_state() and
cpufreq_set_cur_state() is an unnecessary wrapper over cpufreq_apply_cooling().
Get rid of it by merging both routines.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
There is no point checking for validity of 'cpufreq_val' from
cpufreq_thermal_notifier() every time the routine is called. Its guaranteed to
be 0 on the first call but will be valid otherwise.
Lets update it once while the device registers.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
This makes life easy and bug free. And is scalable for future resource
allocations.
Acked-by: Javi Merino <javi.merino@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
Because get_cpu_frequency() has returned a valid frequency, it means that the
cpufreq policy is surely valid and so no point checking that again with
is_cpufreq_valid(). Get rid of the routine as well as there are no more users.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
All CPUs present in 'allowed_cpus' share the same 'struct cpufreq_policy'
structure and so calling cpufreq_update_policy() for each of them doesn't make
sense.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
In __cpufreq_cooling_register() we try to match min/max frequencies for all CPUs
passed in 'clip_cpus' mask. This mask is the cpumask of cpus where the frequency
constraints will be applied.
Same frequency constraint can be applied only to the CPUs belonging to the same
cluster (i.e. CPUs sharing clock line). For all such CPUs we have a single
'struct cpufreq_policy' structure managing them and so getting policies for all
CPUs wouldn't make any sense as they will all return the same pointer.
So, remove this useless check of checking min/max for all CPUs. Also update doc
comment to make this more obvious that clip_cpus should be same as
policy->related_cpus.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
We aren't supposed to return our own error type here. Return what we got.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
ret is initialized before it is used, so no need to set it to 0 in its declaration.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
It will be overwritten soon with return value of kzalloc().
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
This wasn't explained well anywhere and should be clearly specified. Lets add a
top level comment for this.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
cooling_cpufreq_lock isn't used to protect this structure and so the comment
over it is outdated. Fix it.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
In this patch, the cpu_cooling code checks for the usability of cpufreq
layer before proceeding with the CPU cooling device registration. The
main reason is: CPU cooling device is not usable if cpufreq cannot
switch frequencies.
Similar checks are spread in thermal drivers. Thus, the advantage now
is to have the check in a single place: cpu cooling device registration.
For this reason, this patch also updates the existing drivers that
depend on CPU cooling to simply propagate the error code of the cpu
cooling registration call. Therefore, in case cpufreq is not ready, the
thermal drivers will still return -EPROBE_DEFER, in an attempt to try
again when cpufreq layer gets ready.
Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Grant Likely <grant.likely@linaro.org>
Cc: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Naveen Krishna Chatradhi <ch.naveen@samsung.com>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>
Cc: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
Existing code updates cupfreq policy only while executing
cpufreq_apply_cooling() function (i.e. when notify_device != NOTIFY_INVALID).
It doesn't apply constraints when cpufreq policy update happens from any other
place but it should update the cpufreq policy with thermal constraints every
time when there is a cpufreq policy update, to keep state of
cpufreq_cooling_device and max_feq of cpufreq policy in sync. For instance
while resuming cpufreq updates cpufreq_policy and it restores default
policy->usr_policy values irrespective of cooling device's cpufreq_state since
notification gets missed because (notify_device == NOTIFY_INVALID).
Another problem, is that userspace is able to change max_freq irrespective of
cooling device's state, as notification gets missed.
This patch modifies code to maintain a global cpufreq_dev_list and applies
constraints of all matching cooling devices for policy's cpu when there is any
policy update(ends up applying the lowest max_freq among the matching cpu
cooling devices).
This patch also removes redundant check (max_freq > policy->user_policy.max),
as cpufreq framework takes care of user_policy constraints already where ever
required, otherwise its causing an issue while increasing max_freq in normal
scenerio as it restores max_freq with policy->user_policy.max which is old
(smaller) value.
Signed-off-by: Yadwinder Singh Brar <yadi.brar@samsung.com>
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
The cpufreq core now supports the cpufreq_for_each_valid_entry macro
helper for iteration over the cpufreq_frequency_table, so use it.
Also remove the redundant !! operator.
It should have no functional changes.
Signed-off-by: Stratos Karafotis <stratosk@semaphore.gr>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
As per Documentation/thermal/sysfs-api.txt, max_level
is an index, not a counter. Thus, in case a CPU has
3 valid frequencies, max_level is expected to be 2, for instance.
The current code makes max_level == number of valid frequencies,
which is bogus. This patch fix the cpu_cooling device by
ranging max_level properly.
Reported-by: Carlos Hernandez <ceh@ti.com>
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <eduardo.valentin@ti.com>
Signed-off-by: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>
This patch introduces an API to register cpufreq cooling device
based on device tree node.
The registration via device tree node differs from normal
registration due to the fact that it is needed to fill
the device_node structure in order to be able to match
the cooling devices with trip points.
Cc: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>
Cc: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <eduardo.valentin@ti.com>
In case of error, the function thermal_cooling_device_register() returns
ERR_PTR() and never returns NULL. The NULL test in the return value check
should be replaced with IS_ERR().
Signed-off-by: Wei Yongjun <yongjun_wei@trendmicro.com.cn>
Signed-off-by: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>
This patch avoids NULL pointer accesses while unregistering
cpu cooling devices, in case a NULL pointer is received.
Cc: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>
Cc: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <eduardo.valentin@ti.com>
cpufreq_thermal_notifier() is to change the cpu's cpufreq in the allowed_cpus mask
when associated thermal-cpufreq cdev's cooling state is changed. It's a cpufreq policy
notifier handler and it will be triggered even if those cpus out of allowed_cpus has
changed freq policy.
cpufreq_thermal_notifier() checks the policy->cpu. If it belongs to allowed_cpus,
change max_freq(default to 0) to the desire cpufreq value and pass 0 and max_freq
to cpufreq_verify_within_limits() as cpufreq scope. But if not, do nothing and
max_freq will remain 0. This will cause the cpufreq scope to become 0~0. This
is not right. This patch is to return directly after finding cpu not belonging
to allowed_cpus.
Signed-off-by: Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>
The variable 'descend' is initialized as -1 in function get_property(),
and will never get any chance to be updated by the following code.
if (freq != CPUFREQ_ENTRY_INVALID && descend != -1)
descend = !!(freq > table[i].frequency);
This makes function get_property() return the wrong frequency for given
cooling level if the frequency table is sorted in ascending. Fix it
by correcting the 'descend' check in if-condition to 'descend == -1'.
Signed-off-by: Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>
Improve code readiness by changing alignments so that
they match open parenthesis, like checkpatch.pl --strict
suggests.
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <eduardo.valentin@ti.com>
Signed-off-by: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>
Viresh Kumar