[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <fede8589-dd11-4b0c-aa70-7ec23aed64b1@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2024 11:40:44 +0300
From: Shahar Avidar <ikobh7@...il.com>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: hverkuil-cisco@...all.nl, andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com,
robh@...nel.org, felixkimbu1@...il.com, dan.carpenter@...aro.org,
linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] staging: pi433: Use class_create instead of
class_register.
On 01/05/2024 17:12, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, May 01, 2024 at 08:58:19AM +0300, Shahar Avidar wrote:
>> Make use of a higher level API.
>
> What does this mean?
>
By "higher level" I meant a wrapper function that includes the
"class_register" call.
>> Reduce global memory allocation from struct class to pointer size.
>
> No, you increased memory allocation here, why do you think you reduced
> it?
>
Reducing *global* memory allocation.
I understand the tradeoff would be allocating in run time the class
struct anyway, but than, it could also be freed.
Since the Pi433 is a RasPi expansion board and can be attached\removed
in an asynchronous matter by the user, and only one can be attached at a
time, I thought it is best not to statically allocate memory which won't
be freed even if the hat is removed.
By using the class_create & class_destroy I thought of reducing memory
allocated by the RasPi if the pi433 is removed.
But following your response I now actually see that the class struct
will have the same lifespan anyway if allocated statically or
dynamically if its alive between the init\exit calls.
> Also, this looks like a revert of commit f267da65bb6b ("staging: pi433:
> make pi433_class constant"), accepted a few months ago, why not just
> call it out as an explicit revert if that's what you want to do?
>
I actually saw this commit, but for some reason did not connect the dots
when I wrote this patch. My bad.
> class_create is going away "soon", why add this back when people are
> working so hard to remove its usage? What tutorial did you read that
> made you want to make this change?
>
It's true, I got it the wrong way I guess. I thought class_create is the
preferred API (but now that you mentioned commit f267da65bb6b, I see
it's not). I did notice it in many other drivers though, and took them
as an example (e.g. gnss).
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
I actually initially thought that the pi433 class should be removed
since it doesn't bring any new attributes with it, and that
spi_slave_class is more appropriate, but then I saw no other driver
using it. Any thoughts about that?
--
Regards,
Shahar
Powered by blists - more mailing lists