lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Dec]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/4] power: reset: at91-poweroff: move shdwc related data to one structure
    Date
    Hi Sebastian,

    On 06.12.2018 00:40, Sebastian Reichel wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    > On Wed, Nov 07, 2018 at 06:23:40PM +0100, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
    >> On 07/11/2018 14:54:17+0000, Claudiu.Beznea@microchip.com wrote:
    >>> Hi Alexandre,
    >>>
    >>> On 06.11.2018 23:09, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
    >>>> Hi Claudiu,
    >>>>
    >>>> On 05/11/2018 11:14:26+0000, Claudiu.Beznea@microchip.com wrote:
    >>>>> static int __init at91_poweroff_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
    >>>>> @@ -154,16 +160,22 @@ static int __init at91_poweroff_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
    >>>>> u32 ddr_type;
    >>>>> int ret;
    >>>>>
    >>>>> + at91_shdwc = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*at91_shdwc), GFP_KERNEL);
    >>>>> + if (!at91_shdwc)
    >>>>> + return -ENOMEM;
    >>>>> +
    >>>>
    >>>> Is there any real benefit that will offset the time lost for that
    >>>> allocation at boot time?
    >>>
    >>> No, I haven't run benchmarks on this. I only wanted to have them grouped in
    >>> one structure. Please let me know if you have some tests in mind.
    >>>
    >>
    >> Well, it is probably not much but small things adds up. Having it as a
    >> global structure is probably good enough.
    >
    > I suppose I will get a new patch with this change?

    Yes, I will send a new version for this one.

    Thank you,
    Claudiu Beznea

    >
    > -- Sebastian
    >
    >>
    >>>>
    >>>> I understand you are then testing at91_shdwc to know whether the driver
    >>>> already probed once. But, the driver will never probe twice as there is
    >>>> only one shutdown controller on the SoC and anyway, If it was to probe
    >>>> twice, it will still work as expected.
    >>>
    >>> I had in mind the scenario where the driver would be compiled as module. I
    >>> know insmod already does this checking. I'm ok to remove this checking. I
    >>> will do it in next version. With this I will also remove devm_kzalloc() of
    >>> at91_shdwc.
    >>>
    >>
    >> Thanks,
    >>
    >> --
    >> Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin
    >> Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
    >> https://bootlin.com

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2018-12-06 10:49    [W:6.172 / U:0.088 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site