[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4476fed9-a356-b7f1-32ee-935343e23038@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2020 08:19:32 +0300
From: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: Frank Lee <tiny.windzz@...il.com>,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Peter Chen <Peter.Chen@....com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
Peter Geis <pgwipeout@...il.com>,
Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart@...il.com>,
driver-dev <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>,
linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-samsung-soc <linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
DTML <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
"open list:SECURE DIGITAL HO..." <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 17/30] mmc: sdhci-tegra: Support OPP and core voltage
scaling
09.11.2020 08:10, Viresh Kumar пишет:
> On 09-11-20, 08:08, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>> 09.11.2020 08:00, Viresh Kumar пишет:
>>> On 06-11-20, 21:41, Frank Lee wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 9:18 PM Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 06.11.2020 09:15, Viresh Kumar пишет:
>>>>>> Setting regulators for count as 0 doesn't sound good to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But, I understand that you don't want to have that if (have_regulator)
>>>>>> check, and it is a fair request. What I will instead do is, allow all
>>>>>> dev_pm_opp_put*() API to start accepting a NULL pointer for the OPP
>>>>>> table and fail silently. And so you won't be required to have this
>>>>>> unwanted check. But you will be required to save the pointer returned
>>>>>> back by dev_pm_opp_set_regulators(), which is the right thing to do
>>>>>> anyways.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps even a better variant could be to add a devm versions of the OPP
>>>>> API functions, then drivers won't need to care about storing the
>>>>> opp_table pointer if it's unused by drivers.
>>>>
>>>> I think so. The consumer may not be so concerned about the status of
>>>> these OPP tables.
>>>> If the driver needs to manage the release, it needs to add a pointer
>>>> to their driver global structure.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe it's worth having these devm interfaces for opp.
>>>
>>> Sure if there are enough users of this, I am all for it. I was fine
>>> with the patches you sent, just that there were not a lot of users of
>>> it and so I pushed them back. If we find that we have more users of it
>>> now, we can surely get that back.
>>>
>>
>> There was already attempt to add the devm? Could you please give me a
>> link to the patches?
>>
>> I already prepared a patch which adds the devm helpers. It helps to keep
>> code cleaner and readable.
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20201012135517.19468-1-frank@allwinnertech.com/
>
Thanks, I made it in a different way by simply adding helpers to the
pm_opp.h which use devm_add_action_or_reset(). This doesn't require to
add new kernel symbols.
static inline int devm_pm_opp_of_add_table(struct device *dev)
{
int err;
err = dev_pm_opp_of_add_table(dev);
if (err)
return err;
err = devm_add_action_or_reset(dev, (void*)dev_pm_opp_remove_table,
dev);
if (err)
return err;
return 0;
}
Powered by blists - more mailing lists