linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] PM / OPP: add non-OF versions of dev_pm_opp_{cpumask_,}remove

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 29 Apr 2016 10:22:09 +0100
From:	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc:	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Viresh Kumar <vireshk@...nel.org>, Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>,
	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] PM / OPP: add non-OF versions of
 dev_pm_opp_{cpumask_,}remove_table



On 29/04/16 05:07, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 28-04-16, 18:07, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>> diff --git a/drivers/base/power/opp/core.c b/drivers/base/power/opp/core.c
>> index 433b60092972..e59b9e7c31ba 100644
>> --- a/drivers/base/power/opp/core.c
>> +++ b/drivers/base/power/opp/core.c

[...]

>>   {
>>   	struct opp_table *opp_table;
>>   	struct dev_pm_opp *opp, *tmp;
>> @@ -1884,7 +1885,7 @@ void dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table(struct device *dev)
>>   	if (list_is_singular(&opp_table->dev_list)) {
>>   		/* Free static OPPs */
>>   		list_for_each_entry_safe(opp, tmp, &opp_table->opp_list, node) {
>> -			if (!opp->dynamic)
>> +			if (!opp->dynamic || (opp->dynamic && remove_dyn))
>
> Well, that's a funny one :)
>
> The second conditional statement doesn't require opp->dynamic, as that is
> guaranteed to be true, as the first condition failed.
>
> So this should be:
>
> if (remove_all || !opp->dynamic)
>

Yes, initially I thought we may need to support a mix where both static
entries from DT and dynamic entries will be present and this function
must remove the latter only. But I soon realized that it's not required
and also will get ugly. However I forgot to change this part :(

>>   				_opp_remove(opp_table, opp, true);
>>   		}
>>   	} else {
>> @@ -1894,6 +1895,44 @@ void dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table(struct device *dev)
>>   unlock:
>>   	mutex_unlock(&opp_table_lock);
>>   }
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table() - Free OPP table entries created from static DT
>
> No, this isn't the OF specific function.
>

Sorry, copy-paste disease :) esp. for documenting.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep