[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKew6eWRev=U_4LeptMGjhz1-zNG1djiZJx4NLf0LoLQMNHQTg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 00:00:52 -0800
From: Yadwinder Singh Brar <yadi.brar01@...il.com>
To: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...sung.com>
Cc: linux-samsung-soc <linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
Sangbeom Kim <sbkim73@...sung.com>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>,
Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, Andi Shyti <andi@...zian.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] clk: s2mps11: allocate only one structure for clock init
On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 6:43 PM, Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...sung.com> wrote:
> Hi Yadwinder,
>
>> The driver allocates three structures for three different clock
>> types. They are quite similar and in the clock init data they
>> differ only by the name. Only one of these structure is used,
>> while the others lie unused in the memory.
>>
>>
>> If you are worried about memory, they can be made __initdata by
>> creating a copy during probe.
>
> mmmhhh... allocating in boot time as much as we want and then copy
> what we need? It doesn't look that pretty to me.
>
I think its not a new practice and I don't see any issue with it.
>> The clock's name, though, is not such a meaningful information
>>
>>
>> I think it can be meaningful in debugging.
>
> Can you explain what's the use of the naming other than
> debugging?
>
Isn't debugging important enough ? :)
I had misunderstood your below statement.
Looking at code, it seems its still using different names for different clocks.
>> and by assigning the same name to the initial data we can avoid
>> over allocation. The common name chosen will be s2mps11,
>> coherently with the device driver name, instead of the clock
>> device.
>>
>> Therefore, remove the structures associated to s2mps13 and
>> s2mps14 and use only the one referred to s2mps11 for all kind of
>> clocks.
>>
>>
>> IMHO, with all these modifications, it will leave driver with some extra
>> checks and reduced readability, perhaps will make it complex to add
>> support for similar clocks but with different clk_ops, if next version or
>> any similar mfd chip comes up in future.
>
> In that case, when the new chip will come, we would need to
> figure out something,
Different structures were introduced to handle such cases and keep
driver simple and clean by keeping keep no. of if() checks as limited
as possible.
> but for sure I don't see it as a good idea
> to leave allocated unused structures.
>
Even a single unused structure isn't a good idea, in case where this driver
doesn't get probed. :)
Regards,
Yadwinder
> Thanks,
> Andi
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists