Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 17 May 2018 10:07:56 +0900 | From | Chanwoo Choi <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] PM / devfreq: Init user limits from OPP limits, not viceversa |
| |
Hi,
On 2018년 05월 17일 07:57, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote: > Commit ab8f58ad72c4 ("PM / devfreq: Set min/max_freq when adding > the devfreq device") introduced the initialization of the user > limits min/max_freq from the lowest/highest available OPPs. Later > commit f1d981eaecf8 ("PM / devfreq: Use the available min/max > frequency") added scaling_min/max_freq, which actually represent > the frequencies of the lowest/highest available OPP. scaling_min/ > max_freq are initialized with the values from min/max_freq, which > is totally correct in the context, but a bit awkward to read. > > Swap the initialization and assign scaling_min/max_freq with the > OPP freqs and then the user limts min/max_freq with scaling_min/ > max_freq. > > Needless to say that this change is a NOP, intended to improve > readability. > > Signed-off-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org> > --- > Additional context: I'm considering to introduce the concept of > a devfreq policy, which would probably move min/max_freq inside > of a struct policy, this would make the initialization even > more awkward to read. If this moves forward I might also propose > to rename scaling_min/max_freq to something like min/max_opp_freq > to avoid confusion with the frequencies in the policy (cpufreq uses > scaling_min/max_freq for the sysfs attributes of the policy > limits). > > drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c | 12 ++++++------ > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c b/drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c > index fe2af6aa88fc..0057ef5b0a98 100644 > --- a/drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c > +++ b/drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c > @@ -604,21 +604,21 @@ struct devfreq *devfreq_add_device(struct device *dev, > mutex_lock(&devfreq->lock); > } > > - devfreq->min_freq = find_available_min_freq(devfreq); > - if (!devfreq->min_freq) { > + devfreq->scaling_min_freq = find_available_min_freq(devfreq); > + if (!devfreq->scaling_min_freq) { > mutex_unlock(&devfreq->lock); > err = -EINVAL; > goto err_dev; > } > - devfreq->scaling_min_freq = devfreq->min_freq; > + devfreq->min_freq = devfreq->scaling_min_freq; > > - devfreq->max_freq = find_available_max_freq(devfreq); > - if (!devfreq->max_freq) { > + devfreq->scaling_max_freq = find_available_max_freq(devfreq); > + if (!devfreq->scaling_max_freq) { > mutex_unlock(&devfreq->lock); > err = -EINVAL; > goto err_dev; > } > - devfreq->scaling_max_freq = devfreq->max_freq; > + devfreq->max_freq = devfreq->scaling_max_freq; > > dev_set_name(&devfreq->dev, "devfreq%d", > atomic_inc_return(&devfreq_no)); >
This patch just clean-up codes related to min/max_freq and scaling_min/max_freq. It seems be good.
Reviewed-by: Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@samsung.com>
But, I don't want to change the name from 'scaling_min/max_freq' to 'min/max_opp_freq'. You can check the meaning of variables in comment of struct devfreq.
-- Best Regards, Chanwoo Choi Samsung Electronics
| |