From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Viresh Kumar Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 4/8] PM / OPP: Pass struct dev_pm_opp_supply to _set_opp_voltage() Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 09:15:54 +0530 Message-ID: <20161025034554.GB9162@vireshk-i7> References: <5f5f81da4b9773854fba72359cb911d2660e2957.1476952750.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org> <20161024231453.GS26139@codeaurora.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail-pf0-f172.google.com ([209.85.192.172]:33493 "EHLO mail-pf0-f172.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752105AbcJYDp6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Oct 2016 23:45:58 -0400 Received: by mail-pf0-f172.google.com with SMTP id 128so111015586pfz.0 for ; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 20:45:58 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20161024231453.GS26139@codeaurora.org> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Boyd Cc: Rafael Wysocki , nm@ti.com, Viresh Kumar , linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Vincent Guittot , robh@kernel.org, d-gerlach@ti.com, broonie@kernel.org On 24-10-16, 16:14, Stephen Boyd wrote: > On 10/20, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > Pass the entire supply structure instead of all of its fields. > > > > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar > > --- > > This patch should be combined with the previous one. I think it is a fair to do this separately as this is a completely different logical change. > I'm still > not sure if it even makes sense to do this though. :) > Do we really > have to make duplicate "OPP snapshot" structures just because of > how OPPs use RCU? I agree. With RCU, yes this change is probably required. But I am not sure if RCU fits that well to OPP core anymore. A rw-lock may be much easier to help. -- viresh