Re: [PATCH v8 10/17] power: sequencing: implement the pwrseq core

Bartosz Golaszewski
2024-06-05T07:43:15Z

On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 8:52 AM Ratheesh Kannoth <rkannoth@marvell.com> wrote:
>
> On 2024-05-29 at 00:33:18, Bartosz Golaszewski (brgl@bgdev.pl) wrote:
> > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org>
> >
> > Implement the power sequencing subsystem allowing devices to share
> > complex powering-up and down procedures. It's split into the consumer
> > and provider parts but does not implement any new DT bindings so that
> > the actual power sequencing is never revealed in the DT representation.
> >
> > Tested-by: Amit Pundir <amit.pundir@linaro.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org>
> > ---
> > +
> > +static struct pwrseq_unit_dep *pwrseq_unit_dep_new(struct pwrseq_unit *unit)
> nit. pwrseq_unit_dep_alloc/create rhymes well with pwrseq_unit_dep_free(),

So what?

> > +static void pwrseq_unit_free_deps(struct list_head *list)
> > +{
> > + struct pwrseq_unit_dep *dep, *next;
> > +
> > + list_for_each_entry_safe(dep, next, list, list) {
> no need of 'locks' to protect against simutaneous 'add' ?

No, this only happens once during release.

> > +
> > +static int pwrseq_unit_setup_deps(const struct pwrseq_unit_data **data,
> > + struct list_head *dep_list,
> > + struct list_head *unit_list,
> > + struct radix_tree_root *processed_units)
> > +{
> > + const struct pwrseq_unit_data *pos;
> > + struct pwrseq_unit_dep *dep;
> > + struct pwrseq_unit *unit;
> > + int i;
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; data[i]; i++) {
> Can we add range for i ? just depending on data[i] to be zero looks to be risky.
>

Why? It's perfectly normal to expect users to end the array with a
NULL pointer. The docs say these arrays must be NULL-terminated.

> > + pos = data[i];
> > +
> > + unit = pwrseq_unit_setup(pos, unit_list, processed_units);
> > + if (IS_ERR(unit))
> > + return PTR_ERR(unit);
> > +
> > + dep = pwrseq_unit_dep_new(unit);
> > + if (!dep) {
> > + pwrseq_unit_decref(unit);
> This frees only one 'unit'. is there any chance for multiple 'unit', then better clean
> up here ?

The references to those will be dropped in pwrseq_release().

> > +
> > + /*
> > + * From this point onwards the device's release() callback is
> > + * responsible for freeing resources.
> > + */
> > + device_initialize(&pwrseq->dev);
> > +
> > + ret = dev_set_name(&pwrseq->dev, "pwrseq.%d", pwrseq->id);
> > + if (ret)
> > + goto err_put_pwrseq;
> > +
> > + pwrseq->owner = config->owner ?: THIS_MODULE;
> > + pwrseq->match = config->match;
> > +
> > + init_rwsem(&pwrseq->rw_lock);
> > + mutex_init(&pwrseq->state_lock);
> > + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&pwrseq->targets);
> > + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&pwrseq->units);
> > +
> > + ret = pwrseq_setup_targets(config->targets, pwrseq);
> > + if (ret)
> > + goto err_put_pwrseq;
> > +
> > + scoped_guard(rwsem_write, &pwrseq_sem) {
> > + ret = device_add(&pwrseq->dev);
> > + if (ret)
> > + goto err_put_pwrseq;
> > + }
> > +
> > + return pwrseq;
> > +
> > +err_put_pwrseq:
> no need to kfree(pwrseq) ?

It's literally put on the next line?

Bart