linux-kernel - [PATCH 3/4] PM / Domains: Factorize dev_pm_genpd_set_performance

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <fe07f860e87833377183e1f77ecb089407eb9ad4.1541399301.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Date:   Mon,  5 Nov 2018 12:06:45 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     ulf.hansson@...aro.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
        Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>
Cc:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>,
        niklas.cassel@...aro.org, rnayak@...eaurora.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 3/4] PM / Domains: Factorize dev_pm_genpd_set_performance_state()

Separate out _genpd_set_performance_state() and
_genpd_reeval_performance_state() from
dev_pm_genpd_set_performance_state() to handle performance state update
related stuff. This will be used by a later commit.

Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
---
 drivers/base/power/domain.c | 104 +++++++++++++++++++++---------------
 1 file changed, 61 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/base/power/domain.c b/drivers/base/power/domain.c
index 0d928359b880..6d2e9b3406f1 100644
--- a/drivers/base/power/domain.c
+++ b/drivers/base/power/domain.c
@@ -239,6 +239,62 @@ static void genpd_update_accounting(struct generic_pm_domain *genpd)
 static inline void genpd_update_accounting(struct generic_pm_domain *genpd) {}
 #endif
 
+static int _genpd_set_performance_state(struct generic_pm_domain *genpd,
+					unsigned int state)
+{
+	int ret;
+
+	if (!genpd_status_on(genpd))
+		goto out;
+
+	ret = genpd->set_performance_state(genpd, state);
+	if (ret)
+		return ret;
+
+out:
+	genpd->performance_state = state;
+	return 0;
+}
+
+static int _genpd_reeval_performance_state(struct generic_pm_domain *genpd,
+					   unsigned int state)
+{
+	struct generic_pm_domain_data *pd_data;
+	struct pm_domain_data *pdd;
+
+	/* New requested state is same as Max requested state */
+	if (state == genpd->performance_state)
+		return 0;
+
+	/* New requested state is higher than Max requested state */
+	if (state > genpd->performance_state)
+		goto update_state;
+
+	/* Traverse all devices within the domain */
+	list_for_each_entry(pdd, &genpd->dev_list, list_node) {
+		pd_data = to_gpd_data(pdd);
+
+		if (pd_data->performance_state > state)
+			state = pd_data->performance_state;
+	}
+
+	if (state == genpd->performance_state)
+		return 0;
+
+	/*
+	 * We aren't propagating performance state changes of a subdomain to its
+	 * masters as we don't have hardware that needs it. Over that, the
+	 * performance states of subdomain and its masters may not have
+	 * one-to-one mapping and would require additional information. We can
+	 * get back to this once we have hardware that needs it. For that
+	 * reason, we don't have to consider performance state of the subdomains
+	 * of genpd here.
+	 */
+
+update_state:
+	return _genpd_set_performance_state(genpd, state);
+}
+
 /**
  * dev_pm_genpd_set_performance_state- Set performance state of device's power
  * domain.
@@ -257,10 +313,9 @@ static inline void genpd_update_accounting(struct generic_pm_domain *genpd) {}
 int dev_pm_genpd_set_performance_state(struct device *dev, unsigned int state)
 {
 	struct generic_pm_domain *genpd;
-	struct generic_pm_domain_data *gpd_data, *pd_data;
-	struct pm_domain_data *pdd;
+	struct generic_pm_domain_data *gpd_data;
 	unsigned int prev;
-	int ret = 0;
+	int ret;
 
 	genpd = dev_to_genpd(dev);
 	if (IS_ERR(genpd))
@@ -281,47 +336,10 @@ int dev_pm_genpd_set_performance_state(struct device *dev, unsigned int state)
 	prev = gpd_data->performance_state;
 	gpd_data->performance_state = state;
 
-	/* New requested state is same as Max requested state */
-	if (state == genpd->performance_state)
-		goto unlock;
-
-	/* New requested state is higher than Max requested state */
-	if (state > genpd->performance_state)
-		goto update_state;
-
-	/* Traverse all devices within the domain */
-	list_for_each_entry(pdd, &genpd->dev_list, list_node) {
-		pd_data = to_gpd_data(pdd);
-
-		if (pd_data->performance_state > state)
-			state = pd_data->performance_state;
-	}
-
-	if (state == genpd->performance_state)
-		goto unlock;
-
-	/*
-	 * We aren't propagating performance state changes of a subdomain to its
-	 * masters as we don't have hardware that needs it. Over that, the
-	 * performance states of subdomain and its masters may not have
-	 * one-to-one mapping and would require additional information. We can
-	 * get back to this once we have hardware that needs it. For that
-	 * reason, we don't have to consider performance state of the subdomains
-	 * of genpd here.
-	 */
-
-update_state:
-	if (genpd_status_on(genpd)) {
-		ret = genpd->set_performance_state(genpd, state);
-		if (ret) {
-			gpd_data->performance_state = prev;
-			goto unlock;
-		}
-	}
-
-	genpd->performance_state = state;
+	ret = _genpd_reeval_performance_state(genpd, state);
+	if (ret)
+		gpd_data->performance_state = prev;
 
-unlock:
 	genpd_unlock(genpd);
 
 	return ret;
-- 
2.19.1.568.g152ad8e3369a