Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-111299-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
From: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
Cc: lukasz.luba@arm.com,
	dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	sboyd@kernel.org,
	nm@ti.com,
	linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org,
	daniel.lezcano@linaro.org,
	rafael@kernel.org,
	viresh.kumar@linaro.org,
	krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org,
	alim.akhtar@samsung.com,
	m.szyprowski@samsung.com,
	mhiramat@kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH v2 2/4] PM: EM: Change the em_adjust_new_capacity() to re-use code
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2024 10:32:19 +0000
Message-Id: <20240322103221.47594-3-lukasz.luba@arm.com>
In-Reply-To: <20240322103221.47594-1-lukasz.luba@arm.com>
References: <20240322103221.47594-1-lukasz.luba@arm.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

There is going to be a new update function addressing chip binning.
Therefore, some common code which can be refactored and called from
upcoming changes and em_adjust_new_capacity(). In this way the code
duplication can be avoided.

Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
---
 kernel/power/energy_model.c | 58 +++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 39 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/power/energy_model.c b/kernel/power/energy_model.c
index 9e1c9aa399ea9..6960dd7393b2d 100644
--- a/kernel/power/energy_model.c
+++ b/kernel/power/energy_model.c
@@ -674,23 +674,15 @@ void em_dev_unregister_perf_domain(struct device *dev)
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(em_dev_unregister_perf_domain);
 
-/*
- * Adjustment of CPU performance values after boot, when all CPUs capacites
- * are correctly calculated.
- */
-static void em_adjust_new_capacity(struct device *dev,
-				   struct em_perf_domain *pd,
-				   u64 max_cap)
+static struct em_perf_table __rcu *em_table_dup(struct em_perf_domain *pd)
 {
 	struct em_perf_table __rcu *em_table;
 	struct em_perf_state *ps, *new_ps;
-	int ret, ps_size;
+	int ps_size;
 
 	em_table = em_table_alloc(pd);
-	if (!em_table) {
-		dev_warn(dev, "EM: allocation failed\n");
-		return;
-	}
+	if (!em_table)
+		return NULL;
 
 	new_ps = em_table->state;
 
@@ -702,24 +694,52 @@ static void em_adjust_new_capacity(struct device *dev,
 
 	rcu_read_unlock();
 
-	em_init_performance(dev, pd, new_ps, pd->nr_perf_states);
-	ret = em_compute_costs(dev, new_ps, NULL, pd->nr_perf_states,
+	return em_table;
+}
+
+static int em_recalc_and_update(struct device *dev, struct em_perf_domain *pd,
+				struct em_perf_table __rcu *em_table)
+{
+	int ret;
+
+	ret = em_compute_costs(dev, em_table->state, NULL, pd->nr_perf_states,
 			       pd->flags);
-	if (ret) {
-		dev_warn(dev, "EM: compute costs failed\n");
-		return;
-	}
+	if (ret)
+		goto free_em_table;
 
 	ret = em_dev_update_perf_domain(dev, em_table);
 	if (ret)
-		dev_warn(dev, "EM: update failed %d\n", ret);
+		goto free_em_table;
 
 	/*
 	 * This is one-time-update, so give up the ownership in this updater.
 	 * The EM framework has incremented the usage counter and from now
 	 * will keep the reference (then free the memory when needed).
 	 */
+free_em_table:
 	em_table_free(em_table);
+	return ret;
+}
+
+/*
+ * Adjustment of CPU performance values after boot, when all CPUs capacites
+ * are correctly calculated.
+ */
+static void em_adjust_new_capacity(struct device *dev,
+				   struct em_perf_domain *pd,
+				   u64 max_cap)
+{
+	struct em_perf_table __rcu *em_table;
+
+	em_table = em_table_dup(pd);
+	if (!em_table) {
+		dev_warn(dev, "EM: allocation failed\n");
+		return;
+	}
+
+	em_init_performance(dev, pd, em_table->state, pd->nr_perf_states);
+
+	em_recalc_and_update(dev, pd, em_table);
 }
 
 static void em_check_capacity_update(void)
-- 
2.25.1