Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 20 May 2014 06:25:42 -0500 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] PM / OPP: Implement free_opp_table function | From | Nishanth Menon <> |
| |
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 12:36 AM, Inderpal Singh <inderpal.s@samsung.com> wrote: > On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 12:04 AM, Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com> wrote: >> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 1:08 PM, Inderpal Singh <inderpal.s@samsung.com> wrote: >>> Hi Nishanth, >>> >>> Thanks for the review comments. >>> >>> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 6:43 PM, Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com> wrote: >>>> On 05/16/2014 04:09 AM, Inderpal Singh wrote:
[..] >>>>> + /* Hold our list modification lock here */ >>>>> + mutex_lock(&dev_opp_list_lock); >>>>> + >>>>> + /* Check for existing list for 'dev' */ >>>>> + dev_opp = find_device_opp(dev); >>>>> + if (IS_ERR(dev_opp)) { >>>>> + mutex_unlock(&dev_opp_list_lock); >>>>> + return; >>>>> + } >>>>> + >>>>> + while (!list_empty(&dev_opp->opp_list)) { >>>>> + opp = list_entry_rcu(dev_opp->opp_list.next, >>>>> + struct dev_pm_opp, node); >>>>> + list_del_rcu(&opp->node); >>>>> + kfree_rcu(opp, head); >>>>> + } >>>> >>>> How about the OPP notifiers? should'nt we add a new event >>>> OPP_EVENT_REMOVE? >>>> >>> >>> As this function is to free the whole opp table. Hence, I think, >>> notifier may not be needed. It may be required for per opp removal as >>> is the case with opp addition and enable/disable. But at present there >>> are no users of these notifiers at all. Let me know your view. >> >> umm.. we do have devfreq which depends on OPPs :). > > Yes, devfreq does depend on OPPs, but no devfreq driver is registering > its notifier_block to handle OPP notifications. >
Lets not forget the power of downstream tree drivers that use the API set :)
>> >>>> To maintain non-dt behavior coherency, should'nt we rather add a >>>> opp_remove or an opp_del function? >>> >>> Yes we should have opp_remove as well, but what's the use case ? >>> Should we go ahead and implement it Or, wait for the use-case? >> >> IMHO, if we are doing it properly, we should add the requisite >> function as well. we dont want to have differing behavior device tree >> Vs non-DT. > > So we will have 2 functions then. One to remove the whole opp table > and the the other to remove the individual OPPs. > I will cover this in v2. Will also take care of the OPP_EVENT_REMOVE > notification part. >
Thanks.
-- Regards, Nishanth Menon
| |