[PATCH v7 03/15] PM / EM: update callback structure and add device pointer

[Lukasz Luba]

Hi Quentin,

On 5/11/20 12:57 PM, Quentin Perret wrote:
> On Monday 11 May 2020 at 12:19:00 (+0100), Lukasz Luba wrote:
>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/scmi-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/scmi-cpufreq.c
>> index 61623e2ff149..11ee24e06d12 100644
>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/scmi-cpufreq.c
>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/scmi-cpufreq.c
>> @@ -103,17 +103,12 @@ scmi_get_sharing_cpus(struct device *cpu_dev, struct cpumask *cpumask)
>>   }
>>   
>>   static int __maybe_unused
>> -scmi_get_cpu_power(unsigned long *power, unsigned long *KHz, int cpu)
>> +scmi_get_cpu_power(unsigned long *power, unsigned long *KHz,
>> +		   struct device *cpu_dev)
>>   {
>> -	struct device *cpu_dev = get_cpu_device(cpu);
>>   	unsigned long Hz;
>>   	int ret, domain;
>>   
>> -	if (!cpu_dev) {
>> -		pr_err("failed to get cpu%d device\n", cpu);
>> -		return -ENODEV;
>> -	}
>> -
>>   	domain = handle->perf_ops->device_domain_id(cpu_dev);
>>   	if (domain < 0)
>>   		return domain;
>> @@ -200,7 +195,7 @@ static int scmi_cpufreq_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>>   
>>   	policy->fast_switch_possible = true;
>>   
>> -	em_register_perf_domain(policy->cpus, nr_opp, &em_cb);
> 
> So this one has no users after this patch right? I suppose you could
> squash patch 05 in this one. But no big deal.

Yes, it was tricky to me to decide the splits suggested by Daniel and
this is the example. I had to introduce the em_dev_register_perf_domain
and make clients of it before I remove the old em_register_perf_domain
completely. I agree it could also go with the patch 5, but it does not
harm to be here.

> 
> Acked-by: Quentin Perret <qperret at google.com>

Thank you for this ACKs and the earlier.

Regards,
Lukasz

> 
>> +	em_dev_register_perf_domain(cpu_dev, nr_opp, &em_cb, policy->cpus);
>>   
>>   	return 0;