Re: [PATCH v9 04/10] drivers: qcom: rpmh: add RPMH helper functions

[Raju P L S S S N <rplsssn@codeaurora.org>]

Hi,

On 5/31/2018 3:19 AM, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 3:45 AM, Raju P L S S S N
> <rplsssn@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>> --- a/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmh-rsc.c
>> +++ b/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmh-rsc.c
>> @@ -61,6 +61,8 @@
>>   #define CMD_STATUS_ISSUED              BIT(8)
>>   #define CMD_STATUS_COMPL               BIT(16)
>>
>> +LIST_HEAD(rsc_drv_list);
> 
> I still see no point of rsc_drv_list.  Please remove it, AKA squash in
> <http://crosreview.com/1042883>.

Agree.


> 
> I'm also still of the opinion that we should take something like
> <http://crosreview.com/1054646>, AKA "Get rid of the global array
> rpmh_rsc".


>> +/**
>> + * __rpmh_write: send the RPMH request
>> + *
>> + * @dev: The device making the request
>> + * @state: Active/Sleep request type
>> + * @rpm_msg: The data that needs to be sent (cmds).
>> + */
>> +static int __rpmh_write(const struct device *dev, enum rpmh_state state,
>> +                       struct rpmh_request *rpm_msg)
>> +{
>> +       struct rpmh_ctrlr *ctrlr = get_rpmh_ctrlr(dev);
>> +
>> +       if (IS_ERR(ctrlr))
>> +               return PTR_ERR(ctrlr);
>> +
>> +       rpm_msg->msg.state = state;
>> +
>> +       if (state != RPMH_ACTIVE_ONLY_STATE)
>> +               return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> +       WARN_ON(irqs_disabled());
>> +
>> +       return rpmh_rsc_send_data(ctrlr->drv, &rpm_msg->msg);
>> +}
> 
> You went too far in the removal of EXPORT_SYMBOL I think.  This symbol
> needs to be exported because other code that could be compiled as a
> module might need to call into it.  To explain:
> 
> * If two files that are always built-in to Linux need to call into
> each other: no need for EXPORT_SYMBOL.
> 
> * If two files that are always part of the same module need to call
> into each other: no need for EXPORT_SYMBOL.
> 
> * If one file that might be built-into a module needs to call another
> that's builtin to the kernel: need EXPORT_SYMBOL.

Thanks for the explanation Doug. Will address this.

Thanks,
Raju