Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 12 Feb 2019 15:19:09 +0530 | From | Viresh Kumar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH V2 2/2] cpufreq: dt: Implement online/offline() callbacks |
| |
On 12-02-19, 10:43, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 8:07 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > Implement the light-weight tear down and bring up helpers to reduce the > > amount of work to do on CPU offline/online operation. > > > > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> > > --- > > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt.c > > index 7ba392911cd0..1aefaa1b0ca2 100644 > > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt.c > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt.c > > @@ -295,6 +295,21 @@ static int cpufreq_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) > > return ret; > > } > > > > +static int cpufreq_online(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) > > +{ > > + /* We did light-weight tear down earlier, nothing to do here */ > > + return 0; > > +} > > I think you could avoid having to add this empty stub if the core > checked for both online and offline, that is > > if (driver->offline || driver->online) {
This doesn't look great as all we should care about here is ->online() and checking for offline as well looks a bit hacky.
> ret = driver->online ? driver->online(policy) : 0; > } else { > ret = driver->init(policy); > } > > or similar.
I also thought of a new flag like: CPUFREQ_LIGHT_WEIGHT_OFFLINE and then we can get rid of both online/offline dummies but then thought of starting with the dummy routines to begin with :)
-- viresh
| |