Re: [PATCH 05/13] PM: QoS: support the dynamic insertion and removal of devices

[Jean Pihet <jean.pihet@newoldbits.com>]

Rafael,

2011/7/31 Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl>:
> On Thursday, July 28, 2011, jean.pihet@newoldbits.com wrote:
...

>> @@ -113,6 +109,8 @@ void device_pm_remove(struct device *dev)
>>  {
>>       pr_debug("PM: Removing info for %s:%s\n",
>>                dev->bus ? dev->bus->name : "No Bus", dev_name(dev));
>> +     /* Call PM QoS to de-init the per-device latency constraints */
>> +     pm_qos_dev_constraints_deinit(dev);
>
> I'd call this function "dev_pm_qos_constraints_destroy()" (and the previous
> one "dev_pm_qos_constraints_init()" for consistency).
Ok

...
>> +/* Called from the device PM subsystem at device init */
>> +void pm_qos_dev_constraints_init(struct device *dev)
>> +{
>> +     plist_head_init(&dev->power.latency_constraints.list, &dev->power.lock);
>> +     dev->power.latency_constraints.target_value =
>> +                                     PM_QOS_DEV_LAT_DEFAULT_VALUE;
>> +     dev->power.latency_constraints.default_value =
>> +                                     PM_QOS_DEV_LAT_DEFAULT_VALUE;
>> +     dev->power.latency_constraints.type = PM_QOS_MIN;
>> +     dev->power.latency_constraints_init = 1;
>
> You could avoid adding this field if there were a PM_QOS_UNINITIALIZED
> (or PM_QOS_UNKNOWN) type.
>
> And if you _really_ want to have a separate field, why don't you put it
> into latency_constraints ?
Ok I remove latency_constraints_init and use the type field instead.

...
>
> Thanks,
> Rafael

Thanks,
Jean
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html