Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] powercap/drivers/idle_inject: Specify idle state max latency | From | Daniel Lezcano <> | Date | Thu, 26 Mar 2020 20:47:30 +0100 |
| |
On 26/03/2020 20:37, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 8:20 PM Daniel Lezcano > <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> wrote: >> >> On 26/03/2020 20:14, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>> On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 3:48 PM Daniel Lezcano >>> <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> Currently the idle injection framework uses the play_idle() >>>> function which puts the current CPU in an idle state. The >>>> idle state is the deepest one, as specified by the latency >>>> constraint when calling the subsequent play_idle_precise() >>>> function with the INT_MAX. >>>> >>>> The idle_injection is used by the cpuidle_cooling device >>>> which computes the idle / run duration to mitigate the >>>> temperature by injecting idle cycles. The cooling device has >>>> no control on the depth of the idle state. >>>> >>>> Allow finer control of the idle injection mechanism by >>>> allowing to specify the latency for the idle state. Thus the >>>> cooling device has the ability to have a guarantee on the >>>> exit latency of the idle states it is injecting. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> >>>> --- drivers/powercap/idle_inject.c | 27 >>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++- include/linux/idle_inject.h | >>>> 6 ++++++ 2 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> [ ... ] >> >>>> + +void idle_inject_set_latency(struct idle_inject_device >>>> *ii_dev, + unsigned int >>>> latency_ns); + +unsigned int idle_inject_get_latency(struct >>>> idle_inject_device *ii_dev); + #endif /* __IDLE_INJECT_H__ */ >>>> -- >>> >>> I would like to see a user of idle_inject_get_latency() before >>> this goes in. >> >> Do you mean a user for the set/get or the get only? If the >> latter, there is no user yet I just added it to have an usual >> get/set helpers, if that hurts, I can resend by removing it. If >> the former, there is a patch I'm about to send which depends on >> the 'set'. > > So I wouldn't add the "get" thing at all if it has no users.
Ok
> Also it would be better to send this patch along with the other > one depending on it.
Sure will resend along with the other patches.
-- <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
| |