[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20200508131338.32956-1-bernard@vivo.com>
Date: Fri, 8 May 2020 06:13:38 -0700
From: Bernard Zhao <bernard@...o.com>
To: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>, Kukjin Kim <kgene@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: opensource.kernel@...o.com, Bernard Zhao <bernard@...o.com>
Subject: [PATCH] memory/samsung: reduce unnecessary mutex lock area
Maybe dmc->df->lock is unnecessary to protect function
exynos5_dmc_perf_events_check(dmc). If we have to protect,
dmc->lock is more better and more effective.
Also, it seems not needed to protect "if (ret) & dev_warn"
branch.
Signed-off-by: Bernard Zhao <bernard@...o.com>
---
drivers/memory/samsung/exynos5422-dmc.c | 6 ++----
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/memory/samsung/exynos5422-dmc.c b/drivers/memory/samsung/exynos5422-dmc.c
index 22a43d662833..88e8ac8b5327 100644
--- a/drivers/memory/samsung/exynos5422-dmc.c
+++ b/drivers/memory/samsung/exynos5422-dmc.c
@@ -1345,16 +1345,14 @@ static irqreturn_t dmc_irq_thread(int irq, void *priv)
int res;
struct exynos5_dmc *dmc = priv;
- mutex_lock(&dmc->df->lock);
-
exynos5_dmc_perf_events_check(dmc);
+ mutex_lock(&dmc->df->lock);
res = update_devfreq(dmc->df);
+ mutex_unlock(&dmc->df->lock);
if (res)
dev_warn(dmc->dev, "devfreq failed with %d\n", res);
- mutex_unlock(&dmc->df->lock);
-
return IRQ_HANDLED;
}
--
2.26.2
Powered by blists - more mailing lists