| 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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 11:40:50 +0100
From: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>,
Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...eaurora.org>,
Niklas Cassel <niklas.cassel@...aro.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 6/7] PM / Domains: Factorize dev_pm_genpd_set_performance_state()
On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 at 11:15, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> Tested-by: Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...eaurora.org>
> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Reviewed-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
Nitpick: Would be nice to remove the beginning "_" from both
_genpd_reeval_performance_state() and _genpd_set_performance_state(),
as to be consistent with existing function naming in genpd. However,
it's not a big deal and can be done on top.
> ---
> drivers/base/power/domain.c | 95 +++++++++++++++++++++----------------
> 1 file changed, 55 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/base/power/domain.c b/drivers/base/power/domain.c
> index 1e98c637e069..808ba41b6580 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/power/domain.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/power/domain.c
> @@ -239,6 +239,56 @@ 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_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 state;
> +
> + /* New requested state is higher than Max requested state */
> + if (state > genpd->performance_state)
> + return 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;
> + }
> +
> + /*
> + * 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.
> + */
> + return state;
> +}
> +
> +static int _genpd_set_performance_state(struct generic_pm_domain *genpd,
> + unsigned int state)
> +{
> + int ret;
> +
> + if (state == genpd->performance_state)
> + return 0;
> +
> + ret = genpd->set_performance_state(genpd, state);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> +
> + genpd->performance_state = state;
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> /**
> * dev_pm_genpd_set_performance_state- Set performance state of device's power
> * domain.
> @@ -257,10 +307,9 @@ 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))
> @@ -281,45 +330,11 @@ 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:
> - ret = genpd->set_performance_state(genpd, state);
> - if (ret) {
> + state = _genpd_reeval_performance_state(genpd, state);
> + ret = _genpd_set_performance_state(genpd, state);
> + if (ret)
> gpd_data->performance_state = prev;
> - goto unlock;
> - }
>
> - genpd->performance_state = state;
> -
> -unlock:
> genpd_unlock(genpd);
>
> return ret;
> --
> 2.19.1.568.g152ad8e3369a
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists