Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 18 May 2015 09:33:28 -0500 | From | Dave Gerlach <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] remoteproc: introduce rproc_get_by_phandle API |
| |
Ohad, On 05/16/2015 02:18 AM, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote: > Hi Suman, > > On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 6:09 PM, Suman Anna <s-anna@ti.com> wrote: >> On 05/09/2015 02:39 AM, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote: >>> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 10:37 PM, Dave Gerlach <d-gerlach@ti.com> wrote: >>>> This patch uses the code removed by commit 40e575b1d0b3 ("remoteproc: >>>> remove the get_by_name/put API") for the ref counting a rproc klist >>>> code but has rproc_get_by_name replaced with an rproc_get_by_phandle API. >>> >>> The general idea makes sense to me, but I'm not sure we really do need >>> a klist here, since the usage profile of this list is expected to be >>> super simple: very small number of accessors, looking for small number >>> of list members a small number of times, and probably never do need to >>> modify the list while accessing it. >>> >>> I suspect that the code would be simpler to maintain, debug and >>> understand if we just use a simple list with a simple locking >>> methodology here. >> >> The klist usage is something that we restored from previous remoteproc >> core code as used by the rproc_get_by_name() API. This was removed in >> commit 40e575b1d0b3 ("remoteproc: remove the get_by_name/put API"). We >> chose to use the code that had been present before rather than inventing >> something new all over again. If you feel that a regular list is the way >> to go forward, we can make the switch. > > Yes, please. Using a regular list with a simple locking methodology > should make the code easier to understand and debug.
Ok, that makes sense, we can change this. Thanks for your input.
Regards, Dave
> > Thanks, > Ohad. >
| |