On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 8:09 AM Viresh Kumar <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 29-01-19, 11:50, Amit Kucheria wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 11:16 AM Amit Kucheria <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 11:06 AM Viresh Kumar <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On 29-01-19, 10:25, Amit Kucheria wrote: > > > > > All cpufreq drivers do similar things to register as a cooling device. > > > > > Provide a cpufreq driver flag so drivers can just ask the cpufreq core > > > > > to register the cooling device on their behalf. This allows us to get > > > > > rid of duplicated code in the drivers. > > > > > > > > > > In order to allow this, we add a struct thermal_cooling_device pointer > > > > > to struct cpufreq_policy so that drivers don't need to store it in a > > > > > private data structure. > > > > > > > > > > Suggested-by: Stephen Boyd <[email protected]> > > > > > Suggested-by: Viresh Kumar <[email protected]> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Amit Kucheria <[email protected]> > > > > > Reviewed-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <[email protected]> > > > > > Tested-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <[email protected]> > > > > > Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <[email protected]> > > > > > --- > > > > > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 13 +++++++++++++ > > > > > include/linux/cpufreq.h | 9 +++++++++ > > > > > 2 files changed, 22 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > > > > > index e35a886e00bc..0f9b50d3ee91 100644 > > > > > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > > > > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > > > > > @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ > > > > > > > > > > #include <linux/cpu.h> > > > > > #include <linux/cpufreq.h> > > > > > +#include <linux/cpu_cooling.h> > > > > > #include <linux/delay.h> > > > > > #include <linux/device.h> > > > > > #include <linux/init.h> > > > > > @@ -1318,6 +1319,11 @@ static int cpufreq_online(unsigned int cpu) > > > > > if (cpufreq_driver->ready) > > > > > cpufreq_driver->ready(policy); > > > > > > > > > > +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CPU_THERMAL) > > > > > + if (cpufreq_driver->flags & CPUFREQ_IS_COOLING_DEV) > > > > > + policy->cdev = of_cpufreq_cooling_register(policy); > > > > > +#endif > > > > > > > > I am not sure if Rafael wanted it this way but maybe something like > > > > this: > > > > > > > > if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CPU_THERMAL) && > > > > cpufreq_driver->flags & CPUFREQ_IS_COOLING_DEV)) > > > > policy->cdev = of_cpufreq_cooling_register(policy); > > > > > > > > We never wanted ifdef hackery to be in there :) > > > > > > OK, that makes more sense. Should I just send out a fixup patch or the > > > entire series? > > Single patch should be fine I believe. > > > FWIW, I checked drivers/cpufreq and drivers/thermal before converting > > over and there is a mixed use of #if IS_ENABLED and if(IS_ENABLED). > > > > Perhaps we should clean it up? > > No objections from me on that.
Generally speaking, though, "if (IS_ENABLED(SYMBOL))" can only be used if all of the symbols in the conditional branch are defined regardless of whether or not SYMBOL itself is defined, so careful there.
