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>

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>

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>

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>

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>

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>

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>

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>

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>