[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5559F838.4010003@ti.com>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 09:33:28 -0500
From: Dave Gerlach <d-gerlach@...com>
To: Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@...ery.com>, Suman Anna <s-anna@...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>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...aro.org>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] remoteproc: introduce rproc_get_by_phandle API
Ohad,
On 05/16/2015 02:18 AM, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
> Hi Suman,
>
> On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 6:09 PM, Suman Anna <s-anna@...com> wrote:
>> On 05/09/2015 02:39 AM, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 10:37 PM, Dave Gerlach <d-gerlach@...com> wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>
>> The klist usage is something that we restored from previous remoteproc
>> core code as used by the rproc_get_by_name() API. This was removed in
>> commit 40e575b1d0b3 ("remoteproc: remove the get_by_name/put API"). We
>> chose to use the code that had been present before rather than inventing
>> something new all over again. If you feel that a regular list is the way
>> to go forward, we can make the switch.
>
> Yes, please. Using a regular list with a simple locking methodology
> should make the code easier to understand and debug.
Ok, that makes sense, we can change this. Thanks for your input.
Regards,
Dave
>
> 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