From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Boyd Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/10] PM / OPP: Don't allocate OPP table from _opp_allocate() Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 16:43:50 -0800 Message-ID: <20161222004350.GC8288@codeaurora.org> References: <20161207010221.GE4388@codeaurora.org> <20161207041744.GF31255@vireshk-i7> <20161207220525.GB5423@codeaurora.org> <20161208034558.GB24152@vireshk-i7> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org ([198.145.29.96]:48350 "EHLO smtp.codeaurora.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1761081AbcLVAnw (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Dec 2016 19:43:52 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20161208034558.GB24152@vireshk-i7> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: Viresh Kumar Cc: Rafael Wysocki , Viresh Kumar , Nishanth Menon , linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Vincent Guittot On 12/08, Viresh Kumar wrote: > Subject: [PATCH] PM / OPP: Don't allocate OPP table from _opp_allocate() > > There is no point in trying to find/allocate the table for every OPP > that is added for a device. It would be far more efficient to allocate > the table only once and pass its pointer to the routines that add the > OPP entry. > > Locking is removed from _opp_add_static_v2() and _opp_add_v1() now as > the callers call them with that lock already held. > > Call to _remove_opp_table() routine is also removed from _opp_free() > now, as opp_table isn't allocated from within _opp_allocate(). This is > handled by the routines which created the OPP table in the first place. > > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar > --- Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project