policy->max is the maximum allowed frequency defined by user and
clipped_freq is the maximum that thermal constraints allow.
If clipped_freq is lower than policy->max, then we need to readjust
policy->max.
But, if clipped_freq is greater than policy->max, we don't need to do
anything. We used to call cpufreq_verify_within_limits() in this case,
but it doesn't change anything in this case.
Lets skip this unnecessary call and write a comment that explains this.
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>
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 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>
Viresh Kumar
Russell King
Kapileshwar Singh
Javi Merino
Zhang Rui
Dan Carpenter