Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 21 Jan 2020 09:31:58 +0000
From:   Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
To:     Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
Cc:     Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-imx@nxp.com, Morten.Rasmussen@arm.com, Chris.Redpath@arm.com,
        ionela.voinescu@arm.com, javi.merino@arm.com,
        cw00.choi@samsung.com, b.zolnierkie@samsung.com, rjw@rjwysocki.net,
        sudeep.holla@arm.com, viresh.kumar@linaro.org, nm@ti.com,
        sboyd@kernel.org, rui.zhang@intel.com, amit.kucheria@verdurent.com,
        daniel.lezcano@linaro.org, mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org,
        juri.lelli@redhat.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org,
        rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de,
        shawnguo@kernel.org, s.hauer@pengutronix.de, festevam@gmail.com,
        kernel@pengutronix.de, khilman@kernel.org, agross@kernel.org,
        bjorn.andersson@linaro.org, robh@kernel.org,
        matthias.bgg@gmail.com, steven.price@arm.com,
        tomeu.vizoso@collabora.com, alyssa.rosenzweig@collabora.com,
        airlied@linux.ie, daniel@ffwll.ch, kernel-team@android.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] PM / EM: and devices to Energy Model
Message-ID: <20200121093158.GA154455@google.com>
References: <20200116152032.11301-1-lukasz.luba@arm.com>
 <20200116152032.11301-2-lukasz.luba@arm.com>
 <20200117105437.GA211774@google.com>
 <40587d98-0e8d-cbac-dbf5-d26501d47a8c@arm.com>
 <20200120150918.GA164543@google.com>
 <8332c4ac-2a7d-1e2d-76e9-7c979a666257@arm.com>
 <b02da0ed-9e0b-36db-9813-daa334cbf2ba@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <b02da0ed-9e0b-36db-9813-daa334cbf2ba@arm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Monday 20 Jan 2020 at 18:38:41 (+0000), Lukasz Luba wrote:
> I think we could avoid this additional argument 'cpumask'. I have
> checked the cpufreq_cpu_get function, which should do be good for this:
> 
> ---------->8-------------------------
> static int _get_sharing_cpus(struct device *cpu_dev, struct cpumask *span)
> {
>         struct cpufreq_policy *policy;
> 
>         policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu_dev->id);
>         if (policy) {
>                 cpumask_copy(span, policy->cpus);

That should be with 'policy->related_cpus', but yes if the policy
cpumasks have been populated this approach is OK I think.

>                 cpufreq_cpu_put(policy);
>                 return 0;
>         } else {
>                 return -EINVAL;
>         }
> }
> --------------------------8<-------------------------------

Thanks,
Quentin