[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK=WgbZCqnMPEnU2992gkOp07BaCP5NJNRO-hLCAdOtUXZGRnQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 9 May 2015 10:39:14 +0300
From: Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@...ery.com>
To: Dave Gerlach <d-gerlach@...com>
Cc: linux-arm <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-omap@...r.kernel.org" <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
Suman Anna <s-anna@...com>, Kevin Hilman <khilman@...aro.org>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] remoteproc: introduce rproc_get_by_phandle API
Hi Dave,
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 10:37 PM, Dave Gerlach <d-gerlach@...com> wrote:
> Allow users of remoteproc the ability to get a handle to an rproc by
> passing a phandle supplied in the user's device tree node. This is
> useful in situations that require manual booting of the rproc.
>
> This patch uses the code removed by commit 40e575b1d0b3 ("remoteproc:
> remove the get_by_name/put API") for the ref counting a rproc klist
> code but has rproc_get_by_name replaced with an rproc_get_by_phandle API.
The general idea makes sense to me, but I'm not sure we really do need
a klist here, since the usage profile of this list is expected to be
super simple: very small number of accessors, looking for small number
of list members a small number of times, and probably never do need to
modify the list while accessing it.
I suspect that the code would be simpler to maintain, debug and
understand if we just use a simple list with a simple locking
methodology here.
Thanks,
Ohad.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists