summaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c
AgeCommit message (Collapse)AuthorFilesLines
2016-02-11thermal: cpu_cooling: fix out of bounds access in time_in_idleJavi Merino1-6/+8
In __cpufreq_cooling_register() we allocate the arrays for time_in_idle and time_in_idle_timestamp to be as big as the number of cpus in this cpufreq device. However, in get_load() we access this array using the cpu number as index, which can result in an out of bound access. Index time_in_idle{,_timestamp} using the index in the cpufreq_device's allowed_cpus mask, as we do for the load_cpu array in cpufreq_get_requested_power() Reported-by: Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@chromium.org> Cc: Amit Daniel Kachhap <amit.kachhap@gmail.com> Cc: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com> Cc: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com> Tested-by: Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@chromium.org> Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> Signed-off-by: Javi Merino <javi.merino@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
2015-10-10thermal: cpu_cooling: Remove usage of devm functionsVaishali Thakkar1-5/+3
In the function cpufreq_get_requested_power, the memory allocated for load_cpu is live within the function only. And after the allocation it is immediately freed with devm_kfree. There is no need to allocate memory for load_cpu with devm function so replace devm_kcalloc with kcalloc and devm_kfree with kfree. Signed-off-by: Vaishali Thakkar <vthakkar1994@gmail.com> Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> Acked-by: Javi Merino <javi.merino@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>
2015-09-13thermal: cpu_cooling: free power table on error or when unregisteringJavi Merino1-5/+16
The power table is not being freed on error from cpufreq_cooling register or when unregistering. Free it. Fixes: c36cf0717631 ("thermal: cpu_cooling: implement the power cooling device API") Cc: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com> Cc: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Javi Merino <javi.merino@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
2015-09-13thermal: cpu_cooling: don't call kcalloc() under rcu_read_lockJavi Merino1-24/+23
build_dyn_power_table() allocates the power table while holding rcu_read_lock. kcalloc using GFP_KERNEL may sleep, so it can't be called in an RCU read-side path. Move the rcu protection to the part of the function that really needs it: the part that handles the dev_pm_opp pointer received from dev_pm_opp_find_freq_ceil(). In the unlikely case that there is an OPP added to the cpu while this function is running, return -EAGAIN. Fixes: c36cf0717631 ("thermal: cpu_cooling: implement the power cooling device API") Cc: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com> Cc: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Javi Merino <javi.merino@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
2015-08-14thermal/cpu_cooling: update policy limits if clipped_freq < policy->maxViresh Kumar1-1/+12
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>
2015-08-14thermal/cpu_cooling: rename max_freq as clipped_freq in notifierViresh Kumar1-4/+4
That's what it is for, lets name it properly. Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
2015-08-14thermal/cpu_cooling: rename cpufreq_val as clipped_freqViresh Kumar1-5/+5
That's what it is for, lets name it properly. Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
2015-08-14thermal/cpu_cooling: convert 'switch' block to 'if' block in notifierViresh Kumar1-16/+10
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>
2015-08-14thermal/cpu_cooling: quit early after updating policyViresh Kumar1-0/+1
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>
2015-08-14thermal/cpu_cooling: No need to initialize max_freq to 0Viresh Kumar1-1/+1
Its always set before getting used, don't initialize it. Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
2015-08-14thermal: cpu_cooling: fix lockdep problems in cpu_coolingRussell King1-11/+20
A recent change to the cpu_cooling code introduced a AB-BA deadlock scenario between the cpufreq_policy_notifier_list rwsem and the cooling_cpufreq_lock. This is caused by cooling_cpufreq_lock being held before the registration/removal of the notifier block (an operation which takes the rwsem), and the notifier code itself which takes the locks in the reverse order: ====================================================== [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ] 3.18.0+ #1453 Not tainted ------------------------------------------------------- rc.local/770 is trying to acquire lock: (cooling_cpufreq_lock){+.+.+.}, at: [<c04abfc4>] cpufreq_thermal_notifier+0x34/0xfc but task is already holding lock: ((cpufreq_policy_notifier_list).rwsem){++++.+}, at: [<c0042f04>] __blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x34/0x68 which lock already depends on the new lock. the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: -> #1 ((cpufreq_policy_notifier_list).rwsem){++++.+}: [<c06bc3b0>] down_write+0x44/0x9c [<c0043444>] blocking_notifier_chain_register+0x28/0xd8 [<c04ad610>] cpufreq_register_notifier+0x68/0x90 [<c04abe4c>] __cpufreq_cooling_register.part.1+0x120/0x180 [<c04abf44>] __cpufreq_cooling_register+0x98/0xa4 [<c04abf8c>] cpufreq_cooling_register+0x18/0x1c [<bf0046f8>] imx_thermal_probe+0x1c0/0x470 [imx_thermal] [<c037cef8>] platform_drv_probe+0x50/0xac [<c037b710>] driver_probe_device+0x114/0x234 [<c037b8cc>] __driver_attach+0x9c/0xa0 [<c0379d68>] bus_for_each_dev+0x5c/0x90 [<c037b204>] driver_attach+0x24/0x28 [<c037ae7c>] bus_add_driver+0xe0/0x1d8 [<c037c0cc>] driver_register+0x80/0xfc [<c037cd80>] __platform_driver_register+0x50/0x64 [<bf007018>] 0xbf007018 [<c0008a5c>] do_one_initcall+0x88/0x1d8 [<c0095da4>] load_module+0x1768/0x1ef8 [<c0096614>] SyS_init_module+0xe0/0xf4 [<c000ec00>] ret_fast_syscall+0x0/0x48 -> #0 (cooling_cpufreq_lock){+.+.+.}: [<c00619f8>] lock_acquire+0xb0/0x124 [<c06ba3b4>] mutex_lock_nested+0x5c/0x3d8 [<c04abfc4>] cpufreq_thermal_notifier+0x34/0xfc [<c0042bf4>] notifier_call_chain+0x4c/0x8c [<c0042f20>] __blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x50/0x68 [<c0042f58>] blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x20/0x28 [<c04ae62c>] cpufreq_set_policy+0x7c/0x1d0 [<c04af3cc>] store_scaling_governor+0x74/0x9c [<c04ad418>] store+0x90/0xc0 [<c0175384>] sysfs_kf_write+0x54/0x58 [<c01746b4>] kernfs_fop_write+0xdc/0x190 [<c010dcc0>] vfs_write+0xac/0x1b4 [<c010dfec>] SyS_write+0x44/0x90 [<c000ec00>] ret_fast_syscall+0x0/0x48 other info that might help us debug this: Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 CPU1 ---- ---- lock((cpufreq_policy_notifier_list).rwsem); lock(cooling_cpufreq_lock); lock((cpufreq_policy_notifier_list).rwsem); lock(cooling_cpufreq_lock); *** DEADLOCK *** 7 locks held by rc.local/770: #0: (sb_writers#6){.+.+.+}, at: [<c010dda0>] vfs_write+0x18c/0x1b4 #1: (&of->mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<c0174678>] kernfs_fop_write+0xa0/0x190 #2: (s_active#52){.+.+.+}, at: [<c0174680>] kernfs_fop_write+0xa8/0x190 #3: (cpu_hotplug.lock){++++++}, at: [<c0026a60>] get_online_cpus+0x34/0x90 #4: (cpufreq_rwsem){.+.+.+}, at: [<c04ad3e0>] store+0x58/0xc0 #5: (&policy->rwsem){+.+.+.}, at: [<c04ad3f8>] store+0x70/0xc0 #6: ((cpufreq_policy_notifier_list).rwsem){++++.+}, at: [<c0042f04>] __blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x34/0x68 stack backtrace: CPU: 0 PID: 770 Comm: rc.local Not tainted 3.18.0+ #1453 Hardware name: Freescale i.MX6 Quad/DualLite (Device Tree) Backtrace: [<c00121c8>] (dump_backtrace) from [<c0012360>] (show_stack+0x18/0x1c) r6:c0b85a80 r5:c0b75630 r4:00000000 r3:00000000 [<c0012348>] (show_stack) from [<c06b6c48>] (dump_stack+0x7c/0x98) [<c06b6bcc>] (dump_stack) from [<c06b42a4>] (print_circular_bug+0x28c/0x2d8) r4:c0b85a80 r3:d0071d40 [<c06b4018>] (print_circular_bug) from [<c00613b0>] (__lock_acquire+0x1acc/0x1bb0) r10:c0b50660 r8:c09e6d80 r7:d0071d40 r6:c11d0f0c r5:00000007 r4:d0072240 [<c005f8e4>] (__lock_acquire) from [<c00619f8>] (lock_acquire+0xb0/0x124) r10:00000000 r9:c04abfc4 r8:00000000 r7:00000000 r6:00000000 r5:c0a06f0c r4:00000000 [<c0061948>] (lock_acquire) from [<c06ba3b4>] (mutex_lock_nested+0x5c/0x3d8) r10:ec853800 r9:c0a06ed4 r8:d0071d40 r7:c0a06ed4 r6:c11d0f0c r5:00000000 r4:c04abfc4 [<c06ba358>] (mutex_lock_nested) from [<c04abfc4>] (cpufreq_thermal_notifier+0x34/0xfc) r10:ec853800 r9:ec85380c r8:d00d7d3c r7:c0a06ed4 r6:d00d7d3c r5:00000000 r4:fffffffe [<c04abf90>] (cpufreq_thermal_notifier) from [<c0042bf4>] (notifier_call_chain+0x4c/0x8c) r7:00000000 r6:00000000 r5:00000000 r4:fffffffe [<c0042ba8>] (notifier_call_chain) from [<c0042f20>] (__blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x50/0x68) r8:c0a072a4 r7:00000000 r6:d00d7d3c r5:ffffffff r4:c0a06fc8 r3:ffffffff [<c0042ed0>] (__blocking_notifier_call_chain) from [<c0042f58>] (blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x20/0x28) r7:ec98b540 r6:c13ebc80 r5:ed76e600 r4:d00d7d3c [<c0042f38>] (blocking_notifier_call_chain) from [<c04ae62c>] (cpufreq_set_policy+0x7c/0x1d0) [<c04ae5b0>] (cpufreq_set_policy) from [<c04af3cc>] (store_scaling_governor+0x74/0x9c) r7:ec98b540 r6:0000000c r5:ec98b540 r4:ed76e600 [<c04af358>] (store_scaling_governor) from [<c04ad418>] (store+0x90/0xc0) r6:0000000c r5:ed76e6d4 r4:ed76e600 [<c04ad388>] (store) from [<c0175384>] (sysfs_kf_write+0x54/0x58) r8:0000000c r7:d00d7f78 r6:ec98b540 r5:0000000c r4:ec853800 r3:0000000c [<c0175330>] (sysfs_kf_write) from [<c01746b4>] (kernfs_fop_write+0xdc/0x190) r6:ec98b540 r5:00000000 r4:00000000 r3:c0175330 [<c01745d8>] (kernfs_fop_write) from [<c010dcc0>] (vfs_write+0xac/0x1b4) r10:0162aa70 r9:d00d6000 r8:0000000c r7:d00d7f78 r6:0162aa70 r5:0000000c r4:eccde500 [<c010dc14>] (vfs_write) from [<c010dfec>] (SyS_write+0x44/0x90) r10:0162aa70 r8:0000000c r7:eccde500 r6:eccde500 r5:00000000 r4:00000000 [<c010dfa8>] (SyS_write) from [<c000ec00>] (ret_fast_syscall+0x0/0x48) r10:00000000 r8:c000edc4 r7:00000004 r6:000216cc r5:0000000c r4:0162aa70 Solve this by moving to finer grained locking - use one mutex to protect the cpufreq_dev_list as a whole, and a separate lock to ensure correct ordering of cpufreq notifier registration and removal. cooling_list_lock is taken within cooling_cpufreq_lock on (un)registration to preserve the behavior of the code, i.e. to atomically add/remove to the list and (un)register the notifier. Fixes: 2dcd851fe4b4 ("thermal: cpu_cooling: Update always cpufreq policy with Reviewed-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
2015-05-04thermal: cpu_cooling: Fix power calculation when CPUs are offlineKapileshwar Singh1-1/+12
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>
2015-05-04thermal: cpu_cooling: Remove cpu_dev update on policy CPU updateKapileshwar Singh1-40/+0
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>
2015-05-04thermal: cpu_cooling: Check memory allocation of power_tableJavi Merino1-0/+4
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>
2015-05-04thermal: add trace events to the power allocator governorJavi Merino1-2/+29
Add trace events for the power allocator governor and the power actor interface of the cpu cooling device. Cc: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com> Cc: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com> Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com> Acked-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> Signed-off-by: Javi Merino <javi.merino@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
2015-05-04thermal: cpu_cooling: implement the power cooling device APIJavi Merino1-17/+566
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>
2014-12-24Merge branches 'thermal-core', 'thermal-soc' and 'thermal-int340x' of .git ↵Zhang Rui1-224/+135
into next
2014-12-21thermal: cpu_cooling: document node in struct cpufreq_cooling_deviceJavi Merino1-0/+1
The node field of struct cpufreq_cooling_device was reintroduced in 2dcd851fe4b4 (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>
2014-12-17thermal: cpu_cooling: small memory leak on errorDan Carpenter1-1/+0
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: f6859014c7e7 ("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>
2014-12-08thermal: cpu_cooling: update copyright tagsViresh Kumar1-0/+2
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>
2014-12-08thermal: cpu_cooling: Use cpufreq_dev->freq_table for finding level/freqViresh Kumar1-89/+19
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>
2014-12-08thermal: cpu_cooling: Store frequencies in descending orderViresh Kumar1-1/+40
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>
2014-12-08thermal: cpu_cooling: Pass 'cpufreq_dev' to get_property()Viresh Kumar1-23/+27
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>
2014-12-08thermal: cpu_cooling: use cpufreq_dev_list instead of cpufreq_dev_countViresh Kumar1-6/+2
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>
2014-12-08thermal: cpu_cooling: get_property() doesn't need to support GET_MAXL anymoreViresh Kumar1-11/+3
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>
2014-12-08thermal: cpu_cooling: find max level during device registrationViresh Kumar1-13/+15
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>
2014-12-08thermal: cpu_cooling: remove unnecessary wrapper get_cpu_frequency()Viresh Kumar1-31/+9
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>
2014-12-08thermal: cpu_cooling: Merge cpufreq_apply_cooling() into cpufreq_set_cur_state()Viresh Kumar1-36/+16
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>
2014-12-08thermal: cpu_cooling: initialize 'cpufreq_val' on registrationViresh Kumar1-5/+7
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>
2014-12-08thermal: cpu_cooling: do error handling at the bottom in ↵Viresh Kumar1-7/+12
__cpufreq_cooling_register() This makes life easy and bug free. And is scalable for future resource allocations. Acked-by: Javi Merino <javi.merino@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
2014-12-08thermal: cpu_cooling: Don't check is_cpufreq_valid()Viresh Kumar1-19/+1
Because get_cpu_frequency() has returned a valid frequency, it means that the cpufreq policy is surely valid and so no point checking that again with is_cpufreq_valid(). Get rid of the routine as well as there are no more users. Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
2014-12-08thermal: cpu_cooling: don't iterate over all allowed_cpus to update cpufreq ↵Viresh Kumar1-6/+3
policy All CPUs present in 'allowed_cpus' share the same 'struct cpufreq_policy' structure and so calling cpufreq_update_policy() for each of them doesn't make sense. Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
2014-12-08thermal: cpu_cooling: Don't match min/max frequencies for all CPUs on ↵Viresh Kumar1-17/+2
cooling register In __cpufreq_cooling_register() we try to match min/max frequencies for all CPUs passed in 'clip_cpus' mask. This mask is the cpumask of cpus where the frequency constraints will be applied. Same frequency constraint can be applied only to the CPUs belonging to the same cluster (i.e. CPUs sharing clock line). For all such CPUs we have a single 'struct cpufreq_policy' structure managing them and so getting policies for all CPUs wouldn't make any sense as they will all return the same pointer. So, remove this useless check of checking min/max for all CPUs. Also update doc comment to make this more obvious that clip_cpus should be same as policy->related_cpus. Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
2014-12-08thermal: cpu_cooling: propagate error returned by idr_alloc()Viresh Kumar1-1/+1
We aren't supposed to return our own error type here. Return what we got. Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
2014-12-08thermal: cpu_cooling: no need to initialze 'ret'Viresh Kumar1-1/+1
ret is initialized before it is used, so no need to set it to 0 in its declaration. Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
2014-12-08thermal: cpu_cooling: no need to set cpufreq_dev to NULLViresh Kumar1-1/+1
It will be overwritten soon with return value of kzalloc(). Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
2014-12-08thermal: cpu_cooling: no need to set cpufreq_state to zeroViresh Kumar1-1/+1
Its already zero, we allocated cpufreq_dev with kzalloc. Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
2014-12-08thermal: cpu_cooling: Pass variable instead of its type to sizeof()Viresh Kumar1-2/+1
Just following coding guidelines here. Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
2014-12-08thermal: cpu_cooling: Add comment to clarify relation between cooling state ↵Viresh Kumar1-0/+14
and frequency This wasn't explained well anywhere and should be clearly specified. Lets add a top level comment for this. Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
2014-12-08thermal: cpu_cooling: fix doc comment over struct cpufreq_cooling_deviceViresh Kumar1-3/+2
cooling_cpufreq_lock isn't used to protect this structure and so the comment over it is outdated. Fix it. Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
2014-12-08thermal: cpu_cooling: random comment fixupsViresh Kumar1-2/+3
s/give/given Acked-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
2014-12-08thermal: cpu_cooling: check for the readiness of cpufreq layerEduardo Valentin1-0/+5
In this patch, the cpu_cooling code checks for the usability of cpufreq layer before proceeding with the CPU cooling device registration. The main reason is: CPU cooling device is not usable if cpufreq cannot switch frequencies. Similar checks are spread in thermal drivers. Thus, the advantage now is to have the check in a single place: cpu cooling device registration. For this reason, this patch also updates the existing drivers that depend on CPU cooling to simply propagate the error code of the cpu cooling registration call. Therefore, in case cpufreq is not ready, the thermal drivers will still return -EPROBE_DEFER, in an attempt to try again when cpufreq layer gets ready. Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Cc: Grant Likely <grant.likely@linaro.org> Cc: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org Cc: Naveen Krishna Chatradhi <ch.naveen@samsung.com> Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org> Cc: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com> Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
2014-11-20thermal: cpu_cooling: Update always cpufreq policy with thermal constraintsYadwinder Singh Brar1-16/+21
Existing code updates cupfreq policy only while executing cpufreq_apply_cooling() function (i.e. when notify_device != NOTIFY_INVALID). It doesn't apply constraints when cpufreq policy update happens from any other place but it should update the cpufreq policy with thermal constraints every time when there is a cpufreq policy update, to keep state of cpufreq_cooling_device and max_feq of cpufreq policy in sync. For instance while resuming cpufreq updates cpufreq_policy and it restores default policy->usr_policy values irrespective of cooling device's cpufreq_state since notification gets missed because (notify_device == NOTIFY_INVALID). Another problem, is that userspace is able to change max_freq irrespective of cooling device's state, as notification gets missed. This patch modifies code to maintain a global cpufreq_dev_list and applies constraints of all matching cooling devices for policy's cpu when there is any policy update(ends up applying the lowest max_freq among the matching cpu cooling devices). This patch also removes redundant check (max_freq > policy->user_policy.max), as cpufreq framework takes care of user_policy constraints already where ever required, otherwise its causing an issue while increasing max_freq in normal scenerio as it restores max_freq with policy->user_policy.max which is old (smaller) value. Signed-off-by: Yadwinder Singh Brar <yadi.brar@samsung.com> Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
2014-07-22thermal: cpu_cooling: fix typo highjack -> hijackJavi Merino1-1/+1
Cc: Eduardo Valentin <eduardo.valentin@ti.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>
2014-04-30thermal: cpu_cooling: Use cpufreq_for_each_valid_entry macro for iterationStratos Karafotis1-20/+13
The cpufreq core now supports the cpufreq_for_each_valid_entry macro helper for iteration over the cpufreq_frequency_table, so use it. Also remove the redundant !! operator. It should have no functional changes. Signed-off-by: Stratos Karafotis <stratosk@semaphore.gr> Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
2014-01-02Merge branches 'misc', 'soc', 'soc-eduardo' and 'int3404-thermal' of .git ↵Zhang Rui1-6/+50
into next
2014-01-02Thermal cpu cooling: return error if no valid cpu frequency entryZhang Rui1-0/+5
Signed-off-by: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>
2014-01-02thermal: fix cpu_cooling max_level behaviorEduardo Valentin1-2/+4
As per Documentation/thermal/sysfs-api.txt, max_level is an index, not a counter. Thus, in case a CPU has 3 valid frequencies, max_level is expected to be 2, for instance. The current code makes max_level == number of valid frequencies, which is bogus. This patch fix the cpu_cooling device by ranging max_level properly. Reported-by: Carlos Hernandez <ceh@ti.com> Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <eduardo.valentin@ti.com> Signed-off-by: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>
2013-12-04thermal: cpu_cooling: introduce of_cpufreq_cooling_registerEduardo Valentin1-6/+50
This patch introduces an API to register cpufreq cooling device based on device tree node. The registration via device tree node differs from normal registration due to the fact that it is needed to fill the device_node structure in order to be able to match the cooling devices with trip points. Cc: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com> Cc: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <eduardo.valentin@ti.com>
2013-11-06thermal: cpu_cooling: fix return value check in cpufreq_cooling_register()Wei Yongjun1-2/+2
In case of error, the function thermal_cooling_device_register() returns ERR_PTR() and never returns NULL. The NULL test in the return value check should be replaced with IS_ERR(). Signed-off-by: Wei Yongjun <yongjun_wei@trendmicro.com.cn> Signed-off-by: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>
generated by cgit v1.2.3 (git 2.39.1) at 2024-12-11 07:41:00 +0000