Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Wed, 29 Oct 2014 14:25:51 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] PM / Domains: Extract code to power off/on a PM domain | From | Ulf Hansson <> |
| |
On 23 October 2014 14:12, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be> wrote: > PM domains are powered on/off from various places. Some callers do > latency measurements, others don't. Consolidate using two helper > functions, which always measure the latencies, and update the stored > latencies when needed. > > Other minor changes: > - Use pr_warn() instead of pr_warning(), > - There's no need to check genpd->name, %s handles NULL pointers fine, > - Make the warning format strings identical, to save memory. > > Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>
Reviewed-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
Though, some minor thoughts below.
> --- > drivers/base/power/domain.c | 101 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------ > 1 file changed, 60 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/base/power/domain.c b/drivers/base/power/domain.c > index 28d6e8bf746c4683..7b2007be51188ff8 100644 > --- a/drivers/base/power/domain.c > +++ b/drivers/base/power/domain.c > @@ -151,6 +151,59 @@ static void genpd_recalc_cpu_exit_latency(struct generic_pm_domain *genpd) > genpd->cpuidle_data->idle_state->exit_latency = usecs64; > } > > +static int do_genpd_power_on(struct generic_pm_domain *genpd)
Should we try to agree on the prefixes of the function names in genpd? Currently there are a mix of them.
May I suggest we try to stick to this:
Exported functions: pm_genpd_* _pm_genpd_* __pm_genpd_*
Static functions: genpd_* _genpd_* __genpd_*
What do you think? Do you have any better suggestions?
Kind regards Uffe
|  |