[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b6a889bc-261d-2082-568c-2eb4847b44b5@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 16:06:39 -0700
From: Doug Berger <opendmb@...il.com>
To: Gregory Fong <gregory.0xf0@...il.com>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
bcm-kernel-feedback-list <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>,
linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] gpio: brcmstb: implement suspend/resume/shutdown
On 10/20/2017 05:54 PM, Gregory Fong wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Doug Berger <opendmb@...il.com> wrote:
>>>> +static int brcmstb_gpio_resume(struct device *dev)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct brcmstb_gpio_priv *priv = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
>>>> + struct brcmstb_gpio_bank *bank;
>>>> + u32 wake_mask = 0;
>>>
>>> This isn't really being used as a mask, contrary to appearances. It's
>>> just tracking whether any active IRQs were seen. Please change to use a
>>> bool instead and adjust the name accordingly.
>>>
>>
>> I see your point, but I believe it is cleaner to use this to consolidate
>> the bit masks returned by each __brcmstb_gpio_get_active_irqs() call.
>> This allows a single test rather than a test per bank.
>
> What about something like this?
>
> bool need_wakeup_event = false;
>
> list_for_each_entry(bank, &priv->bank_list, node) {
> need_wakeup_event |= !!__brcmstb_gpio_get_active_irqs(bank);
> brcmstb_gpio_bank_restore(priv, bank);
> }
>
> if (priv->parent_wake_irq && need_wakeup_event)
> pm_wakeup_event(dev, 0);
>
It's less efficient, but it is not performance sensitive so if you feel
this is more understandable I'll make the change.
Thanks,
Doug
Powered by blists - more mailing lists