All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Kevin Hilman <khilman@kernel.org>
To: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
	"linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
	Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>,
	Lina Iyer <lina.iyer@linaro.org>,
	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>,
	Axel Haslam <ahaslam+renesas@baylibre.com>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski.k@gmail.com>,
	Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] PM / Domains: Remove intermediate states from the power off sequence
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 10:57:01 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <7hy4j9q9aq.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPDyKFqvNp0PcjikZqj4XapfbrNqAUW=ZBFQvvzQZLPMcpS1oQ@mail.gmail.com> (Ulf Hansson's message of "Thu, 18 Jun 2015 12:14:28 +0200")

Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> writes:

[...]

>> Minor nit: I think you should leave these 3 helpers and just simplify
>> them.  It will make the changes below easier to read as well.
>
> I would rather like to remove them. The reason is to create consistency.
>
> For the locking part, there are currently mixtures of
> mutex_lock|unlock() and genpd_acquire|release_lock(). Following your
> suggestion will leave around 6-7 places where mutex_lock() will remain
> used (additionally for mutex_unlock()). So removing the helper
> functions creates a consistent behaviour.

OK, that makes more sense.

> For the genpd->status, it's currently being assigned at various places
> without using a helper function. Again I wanted to create a consistent
> behaviour and make the code more readable.
>
>>
>> Also, for the locking, Lina will be adding these locking functions back
>> anyways, so let's just avoid the extra churn.
>
> Actually I think it becomes more evident what Lina's patchset does if
> she re-introduces an API to deal with the locking. Moreover we can
> "force" that patchset to not break consistently around the locking.
>
>>
>> Otherwise, I think this version is looking really good.
>>
>> With the above tweaks, feel free to add
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Kevin Hilman <khilman@linaro.org>
>>
>> Kevin
>
> Thanks a lot for reviewing!
>
> If you have a strong opinion about your suggestions, I will happily
> adapt to them, please let me know.

No strong option, you convinced me your way will actually make things
more consistent, and Lina prefers them gone as well, so I'm fine with
them gone (as you've done in V4).

Kevin



WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: khilman@kernel.org (Kevin Hilman)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH V3] PM / Domains: Remove intermediate states from the power off sequence
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 10:57:01 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <7hy4j9q9aq.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPDyKFqvNp0PcjikZqj4XapfbrNqAUW=ZBFQvvzQZLPMcpS1oQ@mail.gmail.com> (Ulf Hansson's message of "Thu, 18 Jun 2015 12:14:28 +0200")

Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> writes:

[...]

>> Minor nit: I think you should leave these 3 helpers and just simplify
>> them.  It will make the changes below easier to read as well.
>
> I would rather like to remove them. The reason is to create consistency.
>
> For the locking part, there are currently mixtures of
> mutex_lock|unlock() and genpd_acquire|release_lock(). Following your
> suggestion will leave around 6-7 places where mutex_lock() will remain
> used (additionally for mutex_unlock()). So removing the helper
> functions creates a consistent behaviour.

OK, that makes more sense.

> For the genpd->status, it's currently being assigned at various places
> without using a helper function. Again I wanted to create a consistent
> behaviour and make the code more readable.
>
>>
>> Also, for the locking, Lina will be adding these locking functions back
>> anyways, so let's just avoid the extra churn.
>
> Actually I think it becomes more evident what Lina's patchset does if
> she re-introduces an API to deal with the locking. Moreover we can
> "force" that patchset to not break consistently around the locking.
>
>>
>> Otherwise, I think this version is looking really good.
>>
>> With the above tweaks, feel free to add
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Kevin Hilman <khilman@linaro.org>
>>
>> Kevin
>
> Thanks a lot for reviewing!
>
> If you have a strong opinion about your suggestions, I will happily
> adapt to them, please let me know.

No strong option, you convinced me your way will actually make things
more consistent, and Lina prefers them gone as well, so I'm fine with
them gone (as you've done in V4).

Kevin

  reply	other threads:[~2015-06-24 17:57 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-06-11 11:05 [PATCH V3] PM / Domains: Remove intermediate states from the power off sequence Ulf Hansson
2015-06-11 11:05 ` Ulf Hansson
2015-06-15 23:49 ` Kevin Hilman
2015-06-15 23:49   ` Kevin Hilman
2015-06-15 23:56   ` Lina Iyer
2015-06-15 23:56     ` Lina Iyer
2015-06-16 15:56     ` Kevin Hilman
2015-06-16 15:56       ` Kevin Hilman
2015-06-18 10:14   ` Ulf Hansson
2015-06-18 10:14     ` Ulf Hansson
2015-06-24 17:57     ` Kevin Hilman [this message]
2015-06-24 17:57       ` Kevin Hilman
2015-06-25  8:09       ` Ulf Hansson
2015-06-25  8:09         ` Ulf Hansson
2015-06-23 10:57   ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2015-06-23 10:57     ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2015-06-25 12:24     ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2015-06-25 12:24       ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2015-06-17 20:03 ` Lina Iyer
2015-06-17 20:03   ` Lina Iyer
2015-06-18  7:02   ` Ulf Hansson
2015-06-18  7:02     ` Ulf Hansson

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=7hy4j9q9aq.fsf@deeprootsystems.com \
    --to=khilman@kernel.org \
    --cc=ahaslam+renesas@baylibre.com \
    --cc=dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com \
    --cc=geert+renesas@glider.be \
    --cc=k.kozlowski.k@gmail.com \
    --cc=len.brown@intel.com \
    --cc=lina.iyer@linaro.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=pavel@ucw.cz \
    --cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
    --cc=ulf.hansson@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.