[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <158410c8-2861-a2c9-1246-9604ab9a8e91@codeaurora.org>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 20:54:15 -0500
From: Sinan Kaya <okaya@...eaurora.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc: ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
Timur Tabi <timur@...eaurora.org>,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] ACPI / GED: unregister interrupts during shutdown
On 12/8/2017 8:54 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> static int ged_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> +{
>> + struct acpi_ged_device *geddev = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
>>
>> + ged_cleanup_irq(geddev);
> Do you really need this duplication? You may as well call
> ged_shutdown() from here.
>
> And the local variable is redundant too.
>
> I guess it would be better to just fold ged_cleanup_irq() into
> ged_shutdown() and call that from ged_remove().
>
I originally tried to make these two APIs as common as possible and tried
calling shutdown from remove. However, the calling convention of shutdown
and remove are different.
Shutdown returns void; whereas, remove returns an integer. That's why, I
created a common function and called from both places.
I can probably make the calling parameter of ged_cleanup_irq() a pdev and
get rid of the additional casting in these two different functions.
Let me know if you have a better idea.
--
Sinan Kaya
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists