On Thu 19 Mar 18:41 PDT 2020, Thara Gopinath wrote:
RPMh power control hosts power domains that can be used as
thermal warming devices. Register these power domains
with the generic power domain warming device thermal framework.
Reviewed-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Thara Gopinath <thara.gopinath@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
v3->v4:
- Introduce a boolean value is_warming_dev in rpmhpd structure to
indicate if a generic power domain can be used as a warming
device or not.With this change, device tree no longer has to
specify which power domain inside the rpmh power domain provider
is a warming device.
- Move registering of warming devices into a late initcall to
ensure that warming devices are registered after thermal
framework is initialized.
This information is lost when we merge patches, as such I would like
such design decisions to be described in the commit message itself.
But...
drivers/soc/qcom/rpmhpd.c | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmhpd.c b/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmhpd.c
index 7142409a3b77..4e9c0bbb8826 100644
--- a/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmhpd.c
+++ b/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmhpd.c
@@ -11,6 +11,7 @@
#include <linux/of_device.h>
#include <linux/platform_device.h>
#include <linux/pm_opp.h>
+#include <linux/pd_warming.h>
#include <soc/qcom/cmd-db.h>
#include <soc/qcom/rpmh.h>
#include <dt-bindings/power/qcom-rpmpd.h>
@@ -48,6 +49,7 @@ struct rpmhpd {
bool enabled;
const char *res_name;
u32 addr;
+ bool is_warming_dev;
};
struct rpmhpd_desc {
@@ -55,6 +57,8 @@ struct rpmhpd_desc {
size_t num_pds;
};
+const struct rpmhpd_desc *global_desc;
+
static DEFINE_MUTEX(rpmhpd_lock);
/* SDM845 RPMH powerdomains */
@@ -89,6 +93,7 @@ static struct rpmhpd sdm845_mx = {
.pd = { .name = "mx", },
.peer = &sdm845_mx_ao,
.res_name = "mx.lvl",
+ .is_warming_dev = true,
};
static struct rpmhpd sdm845_mx_ao = {
@@ -452,7 +457,14 @@ static int rpmhpd_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
&rpmhpds[i]->pd);
}
- return of_genpd_add_provider_onecell(pdev->dev.of_node, data);
+ ret = of_genpd_add_provider_onecell(pdev->dev.of_node, data);
+
+ if (ret)
+ return ret;
+
+ global_desc = desc;
+
+ return 0;
}
static struct platform_driver rpmhpd_driver = {
@@ -469,3 +481,26 @@ static int __init rpmhpd_init(void)
return platform_driver_register(&rpmhpd_driver);
}
core_initcall(rpmhpd_init);
+
+static int __init rpmhpd_init_warming_device(void)
+{
+ size_t num_pds;
+ struct rpmhpd **rpmhpds;
+ int i;
+
+ if (!global_desc)
+ return -EINVAL;
+
+ rpmhpds = global_desc->rpmhpds;
+ num_pds = global_desc->num_pds;
+
+ if (!of_find_property(rpmhpds[0]->dev->of_node, "#cooling-cells", NULL))
+ return 0;
+
+ for (i = 0; i < num_pds; i++)
+ if (rpmhpds[i]->is_warming_dev)
+ of_pd_warming_register(rpmhpds[i]->dev, i);
+
+ return 0;
+}
+late_initcall(rpmhpd_init_warming_device);
...why can't this be done in rpmhpd_probe()?
In particular with the recent patches from John Stultz to allow rpmhpd
to be built as a module I don't think there's any guarantees that
rpmh_probe() will have succeeded before rpmhpd_init_warming_device()
executes.
Regards,
Bjorn