Re: [PATCH 1/3] thermal: power_allocator: respect upper and lower bounds for cooling device

[Lukasz Luba]

On 10/14/20 1:31 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 07/10/2020 14:22, Lukasz Luba wrote:
> > The thermal cooling device specified in DT might be instantiated for
> > a thermal zone trip point with a limited set of OPPs to operate on. This
> > configuration should be supported by Intelligent Power Allocation (IPA),
> > since it is a standard for other governors. Change the code and allow IPA
> > to get power value of lower and upper bound set for a given cooling
> > device.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@xxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >   drivers/thermal/gov_power_allocator.c | 6 ++++--
> >   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/thermal/gov_power_allocator.c b/drivers/thermal/gov_power_allocator.c
> > index dd59085f38f5..f9ee7787b325 100644
> > --- a/drivers/thermal/gov_power_allocator.c
> > +++ b/drivers/thermal/gov_power_allocator.c
> > @@ -96,7 +96,8 @@ static u32 estimate_sustainable_power(struct thermal_zone_device *tz)
> >   		if (instance->trip != params->trip_max_desired_temperature)
> >   			continue;
> >   
> > -		if (power_actor_get_min_power(cdev, tz, &min_power))
> > +		if (cdev->ops->state2power(cdev, tz, instance->upper,
> > +					   &min_power))
>
> 	if (cdev->ops->state2power && cdev->ops->state2power(cdev, tz,
> 							instance->upper,
> 							&min_power))
>
> ?


Yes, worth to check. I had this in [1] and missed it here while playing
with re-base of these patch series and other test branches.

I will send v2 with the needed cdev_is_power_actor() check.

> >   			continue;
> >   
> >   		sustainable_power += min_power;
> > @@ -404,7 +405,8 @@ static int allocate_power(struct thermal_zone_device *tz,
> >   
> >   		weighted_req_power[i] = frac_to_int(weight * req_power[i]);
> >   
> > -		if (power_actor_get_max_power(cdev, tz, &max_power[i]))
> > +		if (cdev->ops->state2power(cdev, tz, instance->lower,
> > +					   &max_power[i]))
> >   			continue;
>
> Same here ?

Inside that loop we check (just a few lines above):

		if (!cdev_is_power_actor(cdev))
			continue;

then we call this:

		if (cdev->ops->state2power(cdev, tz, instance->lower,
					&max_power[i]))

So it should be safe.

> >   		total_req_power += req_power[i];

Thank you Daniel for reviewing this.

Regards,
Lukasz

[1] 
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pm/20201008170426.465-3-lukasz.luba@xxxxxxx/