linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/7] PM / Domains: Make it possible to use per-device .active

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:	Thu, 10 Nov 2011 00:02:17 +0100 (CET)
From:	Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@....de>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
cc:	Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux-sh list <linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>,
	Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...com>, jean.pihet@...oldbits.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] PM / Domains: Make it possible to use per-device
 .active_wakeup()

On Wed, 9 Nov 2011, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

> On Wednesday, November 09, 2011, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> > On Tue, 8 Nov 2011, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > 
> > > On Tuesday, November 08, 2011, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 7 Nov 2011, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl>
> > > > > 
> > > > > The current generic PM domains code requires that the same
> > > > > .active_wakeup() device callback routine be used for all devices in
> > > > > the given domain, which is inflexible and may not cover some specific
> > > > > use cases.  For this reason, make it possible to use device specific
> > > > > .active_wakeup() callback routines by adding a corresponding callback
> > > > > pointer to struct generic_pm_domain_data.  To reduce code duplication
> > > > > use struct gpd_dev_ops to represent PM domain device callbacks as
> > > > > well as device-specific ones and add a macro for defining routines
> > > > > that will execute those callbacks.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Modify the shmobile's power domains code to allow drivers to use
> > > > > their own .active_wakeup() callback routines.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  arch/arm/mach-shmobile/pm-sh7372.c |   11 ++++---
> > > > >  drivers/base/power/domain.c        |   54 ++++++++++++++++++-------------------
> > > > >  include/linux/pm_domain.h          |   15 ++++------
> > > > >  3 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 39 deletions(-)
> > > > > 
> > > > > Index: linux/include/linux/pm_domain.h
> > > > > ===================================================================
> > > > > --- linux.orig/include/linux/pm_domain.h
> > > > > +++ linux/include/linux/pm_domain.h
> > > > > @@ -23,6 +23,12 @@ struct dev_power_governor {
> > > > >  	bool (*power_down_ok)(struct dev_pm_domain *domain);
> > > > >  };
> > > > >  
> > > > > +struct gpd_dev_ops {
> > > > > +	int (*start)(struct device *dev);
> > > > > +	int (*stop)(struct device *dev);
> > > > > +	bool (*active_wakeup)(struct device *dev);
> > > > > +};
> > > > > +
> > > > >  struct generic_pm_domain {
> > > > >  	struct dev_pm_domain domain;	/* PM domain operations */
> > > > >  	struct list_head gpd_list_node;	/* Node in the global PM domains list */
> > > > > @@ -45,9 +51,7 @@ struct generic_pm_domain {
> > > > >  	bool dev_irq_safe;	/* Device callbacks are IRQ-safe */
> > > > >  	int (*power_off)(struct generic_pm_domain *domain);
> > > > >  	int (*power_on)(struct generic_pm_domain *domain);
> > > > > -	int (*start_device)(struct device *dev);
> > > > > -	int (*stop_device)(struct device *dev);
> > > > > -	bool (*active_wakeup)(struct device *dev);
> > > > > +	struct gpd_dev_ops dev_ops;
> > > > 
> > > > Wouldn't it be better to merge patches 1 and 2?
> > > 
> > > First, why would it?
> > 
> > Because (1) AFAICS both these patches add new logically rather close to 
> > each other methods to the same existing API,
> 
> Well, in fact .active_wakeup() was added for a totally different reason,
> but I agree that now it _looks_ analogous.
> 
> > and (2) it would reduce the 
> > total changed lines count and simplify reading of the patch(es), because 
> > your second patch moves around and modifies lines of code, that the first 
> > patch adds.
> 
> Well, I can fold [2/7] into [1/7] if that helps.

IMHO that would look nicer, yes.

Thanks
Guennadi
---
Guennadi Liakhovetski, Ph.D.
Freelance Open-Source Software Developer
http://www.open-technology.de/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/