From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Cc: Rafael Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
robh+dt@kernel.org, nm@ti.com,
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@chromium.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>,
open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>, Shawn Guo <shawnguo@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] PM / OPP: Parse 'opp-supported-hw' binding
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 14:53:59 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151118225358.GJ32672@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6d603a73028b40493b280ba7ac9c3fcb51bb2362.1447669859.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
On 11/16, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> @@ -834,6 +837,150 @@ static int opp_parse_supplies(struct dev_pm_opp *opp, struct device *dev)
> }
>
> /**
> + * dev_pm_opp_set_supported_hw() - Set supported platforms
> + * @dev: Device for which the regulator has to be set.
> + * @versions: Array of hierarchy of versions to match.
> + * @count: Number of elements in the array.
> + *
> + * This is required only for the V2 bindings, and it enables a platform to
> + * specify the hierarchy of versions it supports. OPP layer will then enable
> + * OPPs, which are available for those versions, based on its 'opp-supported-hw'
> + * property.
> + */
> +int dev_pm_opp_set_supported_hw(struct device *dev, u32 *versions,
versions could be const.
> + unsigned int count)
> +{
> + struct device_opp *dev_opp;
> + int ret = 0;
> +
> + if (!dev || !versions || !count) {
> + pr_err("%s: Invalid arguments, dev:0x%p, ver:0x%p, count:%u\n",
> + __func__, dev, versions, count);
Weird 0x(null) prints may be here. Do we really need this check
at all though? Users should know what they're doing.
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> + /* Operations on OPP structures must be done from within rcu locks */
> + rcu_read_lock();
> +
> + dev_opp = _add_device_opp(dev);
> + if (!dev_opp)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + /* Do we already have a version hierarchy associated with dev_opp? */
> + if (dev_opp->supported_hw) {
> + dev_err(dev, "%s: Already have supported hardware list\n",
> + __func__);
> + ret = -EINVAL;
Maybe -EBUSY is more appropriate?
> + goto unlock;
> + }
> +
> + dev_opp->supported_hw = kmemdup(versions, count * sizeof(*versions),
> + GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!dev_opp->supported_hw) {
> + ret = -ENOMEM;
> + goto unlock;
> + }
> +
> + dev_opp->supported_hw_count = count;
> +
> +unlock:
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(dev_pm_opp_set_supported_hw);
> +
> +/**
> + * dev_pm_opp_put_supported_hw() - Releases resources blocked for supported hw
> + * @dev: Device for which the regulator has to be set.
regulator or OPP?
> + *
> + * This is required only for the V2 bindings, and is called for a matching
> + * dev_pm_opp_set_supported_hw(). Until this is called, the device_opp structure
> + * will not be freed.
> + */
> +void dev_pm_opp_put_supported_hw(struct device *dev)
> +{
> + struct device_opp *dev_opp;
> +
> + if (!dev) {
> + pr_err("%s: Invalid argument dev:0x%p\n", __func__, dev);
dev is NULL.. so this prints :0x(null) all the time? And really,
who is calling this with a NULL dev?
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + /* Operations on OPP structures must be done from within rcu locks */
> + rcu_read_lock();
> +
> + /* Check for existing list for 'dev' first */
> + dev_opp = _find_device_opp(dev);
Plus this checks for a NULL dev so we really don't need that
check for a NULL dev at the top at all.
> + if (IS_ERR(dev_opp)) {
> + dev_err(dev, "Failed to find dev_opp: %ld\n", PTR_ERR(dev_opp));
> + goto unlock;
> + }
> +
[...]
> +
> +static bool _opp_is_supported(struct device *dev, struct device_opp *dev_opp,
> + struct device_node *np)
> +{
> + unsigned int count;
> + u32 *versions;
> + bool supported = true;
> + int ret;
> +
> + if (!dev_opp->supported_hw)
> + return true;
> +
> + count = of_property_count_u32_elems(np, "opp-supported-hw");
> + if (count != dev_opp->supported_hw_count) {
> + dev_warn(dev, "%s: supported-hw count mismatch, plat:%u != DT:%u\n",
> + __func__, dev_opp->supported_hw_count, count);
> + return false;
> + }
> +
> + versions = kcalloc(count, sizeof(*versions), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!versions)
> + return false;
> +
> + ret = of_property_read_u32_array(np, "opp-supported-hw", versions,
> + count);
> + if (ret) {
> + dev_warn(dev, "%s: failed to read opp-supported-hw property: %d\n",
> + __func__, ret);
> + supported = false;
> + goto free_versions;
> + }
> +
> + while (count--) {
> + /* Both of these are bitwise masks of the versions */
> + if (!(versions[count] & dev_opp->supported_hw[count])) {
> + supported = false;
> + break;
> + }
> + }
> +
> +free_versions:
> + kfree(versions);
Why do we need to allocate an array to check the property a u32
at a time? We should be able to call of_property_read_u32_index()
in a loop and check that against the version array. No allocation
needed.
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-11-18 22:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-11-16 10:37 [PATCH 0/3] PM / OPP: Parse opp-supported-hw/opp-<prop>-<name> bindings Viresh Kumar
2015-11-16 10:37 ` [PATCH 1/3] PM / OPP: Add missing doc comments Viresh Kumar
2015-11-16 10:37 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-11-16 12:14 ` Pavel Machek
2015-11-18 22:29 ` Stephen Boyd
2015-11-16 10:37 ` [PATCH 2/3] PM / OPP: Parse 'opp-supported-hw' binding Viresh Kumar
2015-11-16 10:37 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-11-18 22:53 ` Stephen Boyd [this message]
2015-11-19 2:00 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-11-19 3:02 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-11-16 10:37 ` [PATCH 3/3] PM / OPP: Parse 'opp-<prop>-<name>' bindings Viresh Kumar
2015-11-16 10:37 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-11-19 1:12 ` Stephen Boyd
2015-11-19 3:00 ` Viresh Kumar
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20151118225358.GJ32672@codeaurora.org \
--to=sboyd@codeaurora.org \
--cc=b.zolnierkie@samsung.com \
--cc=dtor@chromium.org \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=len.brown@intel.com \
--cc=linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nm@ti.com \
--cc=pavel@ucw.cz \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=shawnguo@kernel.org \
--cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.