On 07/03/2021 15:16, Chanwoo Choi wrote: > On 21. 3. 7. 오후 6:45, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> Currently the default behavior is to manually having the devfreq >> backend to register themselves as a devfreq cooling device. >> >> Instead of adding the code in the drivers for the thermal cooling >> device registering, let's provide a flag in the devfreq's profile to >> tell the common devfreq code to register the newly created devfreq as >> a cooling device. >> >> Suggested-by: Chanwoo Choi <[email protected]> >> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <[email protected]> >> --- >> V3: >> - Rebased on linux-pm branch without units.h >> - Set the cdev to NULL in case of error >> - Added description for the cdev field in the devfreq structure >> V2: >> - Added is_cooling_device boolean in profile structure >> - Register cooling device when the is_cooling_device boolean is set >> - Remove devfreq cooling device registration in the backend drivers >> V1: >> - Register devfreq as a cooling device unconditionnally >> ---
[ ... ] >> return devfreq; >> >> err_init: >> @@ -960,6 +971,8 @@ int devfreq_remove_device(struct devfreq *devfreq) >> if (!devfreq) >> return -EINVAL; >> >> + thermal_cooling_device_unregister(devfreq->cdev); > > I have a question. Why don't you use devfreq_cooling_unregister()? > When thermal_cooling_device_unregister(), how can we remove > the pm_qos_request of devfreq device? You are perfectly right. I failed to call the right function :/ Will fix it with a v4. -- <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook | <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter | <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
