[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAD=FV=UkiR+xLeowOT+H3ZKNCesf84AJi6mHiHNpJ2P9-DiXaQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2020 07:52:52 -0700
From: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>
Cc: Maulik Shah <mkshah@...eaurora.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
Evan Green <evgreen@...omium.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>,
Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...eaurora.org>,
Lina Iyer <ilina@...eaurora.org>, lsrao@...eaurora.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v16 4/6] soc: qcom: rpmh: Invoke rpmh_flush() for dirty caches
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 9:15 PM Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org> wrote:
>
> > int rpmh_flush(struct rpmh_ctrlr *ctrlr)
>
> This function name keeps throwing me off. Can we please call it
> something like rpmh_configure_tcs_sleep_wake()? The word "flush" seems
> to imply there's some sort of cache going on, but that's not really the
> case. We're programming a couple TCS FIFOs so that they can be used
> across deep CPU sleep states.
I'm hoping this rename can be deferred until Maulik's series and my
cleanup series land. While I agree that rpmh_flush() is a bit of a
confusing name, it's not a new name and renaming it midway through
when there are a bunch of patches in-flight is going to be a hassle.
Assuming others agree, my thought is that Maulik will do one more v17
spin with small nits fixed up, then his series can land early next
week when (presumably) -rc1 comes out. If my current cleanup doesn't
apply cleanly (or if Bjorn/Andy don't want to fix the two nits in
commit messages when applying) I can repost my series and that can
land in short order. Once those land:
* Maulik can post this rpmh_flush() rename atop.
* I can post the patch to remove the "pm_lock" that was introduced in
this series. A preview at <https://crrev.com/c/2142823>.
* Maulik can post some of the cleanups that Maulik wanted to do in
rpmh.c with regards to __fill_rpmh_msg()
...assuming those are not controversial perhaps they can be reviewed
quickly and land quickly? I suppose I can always dream...
-Doug
Powered by blists - more mailing lists