[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPDyKFp5X7JuhXWSb--FUVwF=r-wtnPW0My9=oG14vHaPxSZFQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 17:31:52 +0100
From: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
To: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
Cc: rjw@...ysocki.net, heiko@...ech.de, lukasz.luba@....com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...nel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 4/7] powercap/dtpm: Destroy hierarchy function
On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 at 22:02, Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> The hierarchy creation function exits but without a destroy hierarchy
> function. Due to that, the modules creating the hierarchy can not be
> unloaded properly because they don't have an exit callback.
>
> Provide the dtpm_destroy_hierarchy() function to remove the previously
> created hierarchy.
>
> The function relies on all the release mechanisms implemented by the
> underlying powercap framework.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
> ---
> drivers/powercap/dtpm.c | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> include/linux/dtpm.h | 3 +++
> 2 files changed, 46 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/powercap/dtpm.c b/drivers/powercap/dtpm.c
> index 7bddd25a6767..d9d74f981118 100644
> --- a/drivers/powercap/dtpm.c
> +++ b/drivers/powercap/dtpm.c
> @@ -617,3 +617,46 @@ int dtpm_create_hierarchy(struct of_device_id *dtpm_match_table)
> return ret;
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(dtpm_create_hierarchy);
> +
> +static void __dtpm_destroy_hierarchy(struct dtpm *dtpm)
> +{
> + struct dtpm *child, *aux;
> +
> + list_for_each_entry_safe(child, aux, &dtpm->children, sibling)
> + __dtpm_destroy_hierarchy(child);
> +
> + /*
> + * At this point, we know all children were removed from the
> + * recursive call before
> + */
> + dtpm_unregister(dtpm);
> +}
> +
> +void dtpm_destroy_hierarchy(void)
> +{
> + int i;
> +
> + mutex_lock(&dtpm_lock);
> +
> + if (!pct)
As I kind of indicated in one of the earlier replies, it looks like
dtpm_lock is being used to protect the global "pct". What else?
Rather than doing it like this, couldn't you instead let
dtpm_create_hiearchy() return a handle/cookie for a "dtpm hierarchy".
This handle then needs to be passed to dtpm_destroy_hierarchy().
In this way, the "pct" doesn't need to be protected and you wouldn't
need the global "pct" at all. Although, maybe there would be other
problems with this?
> + goto out_unlock;
> +
> + __dtpm_destroy_hierarchy(root);
> +
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(dtpm_subsys); i++) {
> +
> + if (!dtpm_subsys[i]->exit)
> + continue;
> +
> + dtpm_subsys[i]->exit();
> + }
> +
> + powercap_unregister_control_type(pct);
> +
> + pct = NULL;
> +
> +out_unlock:
> + mutex_unlock(&dtpm_lock);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(dtpm_destroy_hierarchy);
> diff --git a/include/linux/dtpm.h b/include/linux/dtpm.h
> index f7a25c70dd4c..a4a13514b730 100644
> --- a/include/linux/dtpm.h
> +++ b/include/linux/dtpm.h
> @@ -37,6 +37,7 @@ struct device_node;
> struct dtpm_subsys_ops {
> const char *name;
> int (*init)(void);
> + void (*exit)(void);
> int (*setup)(struct dtpm *, struct device_node *);
> };
>
> @@ -67,4 +68,6 @@ void dtpm_unregister(struct dtpm *dtpm);
> int dtpm_register(const char *name, struct dtpm *dtpm, struct dtpm *parent);
>
> int dtpm_create_hierarchy(struct of_device_id *dtpm_match_table);
> +
> +void dtpm_destroy_hierarchy(void);
> #endif
Kind regards
Uffe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists