From: sboyd@codeaurora.org (Stephen Boyd)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 03/10] OPP: Allocate dev_opp from _add_device_opp()
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2015 18:02:40 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <55948DB0.8060500@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <83bd3b9837b30bab62f41aed3dd2cdf52cc21688.1434369079.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
On 06/15/2015 04:57 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> There is no need to complicate _opp_add_dynamic() with allocation of
> dev_opp as well. Allocate it from _add_device_opp() instead.
>
> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> ---
> drivers/base/power/opp.c | 39 +++++++++++++++++++--------------------
> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/base/power/opp.c b/drivers/base/power/opp.c
> index 7895fdd64192..4b646f36f252 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/power/opp.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/power/opp.c
> @@ -408,11 +408,11 @@ struct dev_pm_opp *dev_pm_opp_find_freq_floor(struct device *dev,
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(dev_pm_opp_find_freq_floor);
>
> /**
> - * _add_device_opp() - Allocate a new device OPP table
> + * _add_device_opp() - Returns device OPP table
Find device OPP table, or allocate a new one?
> * @dev: device for which we do this operation
> *
> - * New device node which uses OPPs - used when multiple devices with OPP tables
> - * are maintained.
> + * It tries to find an existing table first, if it couldn't find one, it
> + * allocates a new OPP table and returns that.
> *
> * Return: valid device_opp pointer if success, else NULL.
> */
> @@ -420,6 +420,11 @@ static struct device_opp *_add_device_opp(struct device *dev)
> {
> struct device_opp *dev_opp;
>
> + /* Check for existing list for 'dev' first */
> + dev_opp = _find_device_opp(dev);
> + if (!IS_ERR(dev_opp))
> + return dev_opp;
> +
> /*
> * Allocate a new device OPP table. In the infrequent case where a new
> * device is needed to be added, we pay this penalty.
> @@ -575,8 +580,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(dev_pm_opp_remove);
> static int _opp_add_dynamic(struct device *dev, unsigned long freq,
> long u_volt, bool dynamic)
> {
> - struct device_opp *dev_opp = NULL;
> - struct dev_pm_opp *opp, *new_opp;
> + struct device_opp *dev_opp;
> + struct dev_pm_opp *opp = NULL, *new_opp;
Hm...
> struct list_head *head;
> int ret;
>
> @@ -592,19 +597,11 @@ static int _opp_add_dynamic(struct device *dev, unsigned long freq,
> new_opp->rate = freq;
> new_opp->u_volt = u_volt;
> new_opp->available = true;
> - new_opp->dynamic = dynamic;
>
> - /* Check for existing list for 'dev' */
> - dev_opp = _find_device_opp(dev);
> - if (IS_ERR(dev_opp)) {
> - dev_opp = _add_device_opp(dev);
> - if (!dev_opp) {
> - ret = -ENOMEM;
> - goto free_opp;
> - }
> -
> - head = &dev_opp->opp_list;
> - goto list_add;
> + dev_opp = _add_device_opp(dev);
> + if (!dev_opp) {
> + ret = -ENOMEM;
> + goto free_opp;
> }
>
> /*
> @@ -620,17 +617,17 @@ static int _opp_add_dynamic(struct device *dev, unsigned long freq,
> }
>
> /* Duplicate OPPs ? */
> - if (new_opp->rate == opp->rate) {
> + if (opp && new_opp->rate == opp->rate) {
Isn't opp always non-NULL at this point? Maybe this if statement should
be moved into the list_for_each_entry_rcu() loop.
> ret = opp->available && new_opp->u_volt == opp->u_volt ?
> 0 : -EEXIST;
>
> dev_warn(dev, "%s: duplicate OPPs detected. Existing: freq: %lu, volt: %lu, enabled: %d. New: freq: %lu, volt: %lu, enabled: %d\n",
> __func__, opp->rate, opp->u_volt, opp->available,
> new_opp->rate, new_opp->u_volt, new_opp->available);
> - goto free_opp;
> + goto remove_dev_opp;
> }
>
> -list_add:
> + new_opp->dynamic = dynamic;
> new_opp->dev_opp = dev_opp;
> list_add_rcu(&new_opp->node, head);
> mutex_unlock(&dev_opp_list_lock);
> @@ -642,6 +639,8 @@ static int _opp_add_dynamic(struct device *dev, unsigned long freq,
> srcu_notifier_call_chain(&dev_opp->srcu_head, OPP_EVENT_ADD, new_opp);
> return 0;
>
> +remove_dev_opp:
> + _remove_device_opp(dev_opp);
Doesn't this just return early because dev_opp has something in it?
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-07-02 1:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 47+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-06-15 11:57 [PATCH 00/10] OPP: Add code to support operating-points-v2 bindings Viresh Kumar
2015-06-15 11:57 ` [PATCH 01/10] opp: Relocate few routines Viresh Kumar
2015-07-02 1:25 ` Stephen Boyd
2015-07-24 17:08 ` Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
2015-06-15 11:57 ` [PATCH 02/10] OPP: Create _remove_device_opp() for freeing dev_opp Viresh Kumar
2015-07-02 1:25 ` Stephen Boyd
2015-07-24 17:13 ` Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
2015-06-15 11:57 ` [PATCH 03/10] OPP: Allocate dev_opp from _add_device_opp() Viresh Kumar
2015-07-02 1:02 ` Stephen Boyd [this message]
2015-07-02 6:24 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-07-02 23:46 ` Stephen Boyd
2015-07-03 6:45 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-07-06 22:31 ` Stephen Boyd
2015-07-24 17:25 ` Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
2015-06-15 11:57 ` [PATCH 04/10] OPP: Break _opp_add_dynamic() into smaller functions Viresh Kumar
2015-07-24 17:42 ` Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
2015-06-15 11:57 ` [PATCH 05/10] opp: Add support to parse "operating-points-v2" bindings Viresh Kumar
2015-07-02 1:13 ` Stephen Boyd
2015-07-02 6:38 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-07-02 16:07 ` Stephen Boyd
2015-07-03 6:08 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-07-08 13:41 ` Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
2015-07-09 5:18 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-07-24 18:02 ` Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
2015-07-27 3:14 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-07-27 3:02 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-07-28 23:03 ` Stephen Boyd
2015-07-29 6:53 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-07-30 10:17 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-06-15 11:57 ` [PATCH 06/10] OPP: Add clock-latency-ns support Viresh Kumar
2015-07-02 1:27 ` Stephen Boyd
2015-06-15 11:57 ` [PATCH 07/10] opp: Add OPP sharing information to OPP library Viresh Kumar
2015-07-17 22:51 ` Stephen Boyd
2015-07-18 6:33 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-07-20 17:46 ` Stephen Boyd
2015-07-21 2:18 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-07-27 3:20 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-06-15 11:57 ` [PATCH 08/10] OPP: Add support for opp-suspend Viresh Kumar
2015-07-17 19:22 ` Stephen Boyd
2015-07-18 6:32 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-06-15 11:57 ` [PATCH 09/10] opp: Add helpers for initializing CPU OPPs Viresh Kumar
2015-06-15 11:57 ` [PATCH 10/10] cpufreq-dt: Add support for operating-points-v2 bindings Viresh Kumar
2015-07-09 16:13 ` Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
2015-07-09 16:44 ` Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
2015-07-15 2:59 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-06-30 16:44 ` [PATCH 00/10] OPP: Add code to support " Viresh Kumar
2015-07-17 2:36 ` 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=55948DB0.8060500@codeaurora.org \
--to=sboyd@codeaurora.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).