Messages in this thread | | | From | "Kammela, Gayatri" <> | Subject | RE: [PATCH v3 5/5] platform/x86: intel_pmc_core: fix: Make pmc_core_lpm_display() generic for platforms that support sub-states | Date | Mon, 2 Mar 2020 18:57:04 +0000 |
| |
> -----Original Message----- > From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> > Sent: Monday, March 2, 2020 4:54 AM > To: Kammela, Gayatri <gayatri.kammela@intel.com> > Cc: platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; > Somayaji, Vishwanath <vishwanath.somayaji@intel.com>; > dvhart@infradead.org; Westerberg, Mika <mika.westerberg@intel.com>; > peterz@infradead.org; Prestopine, Charles D > <charles.d.prestopine@intel.com>; Chen Zhou <chenzhou10@huawei.com>; > Box, David E <david.e.box@intel.com> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] platform/x86: intel_pmc_core: fix: Make > pmc_core_lpm_display() generic for platforms that support sub-states > > On Sun, Mar 01, 2020 at 12:44:26PM -0800, Gayatri Kammela wrote: > > Currently pmc_core_lpm_display() uses array of struct pointers i.e., > > tgl_lpm_maps for Tiger Lake directly to iterate through and to get the > > number of status/live status registers which is hardcoded and cannot > > be re-used for future platforms that support sub-states. To maintain > > readability, make pmc_core_lpm_display() generic, so that it can > > re-used for future platforms. > > My comments below.
Thanks Andy! for the comments.
> > ... > > > +static int pmc_core_lpm_get_arr_size(const struct pmc_bit_map **maps) > > +{ > > + int idx, arr_size = 0; > > And why do you need arr_size variable at all?
I could just return idx value at the end of the for loop. I will remove the arr_size variable.
> > > + > > + for (idx = 0; maps[idx]; idx++) > > + arr_size++; > > + > > + return arr_size; > > +} > > ... > > > - int index, idx, len = 32, bit_mask; > > + int index, idx, bit_mask, len = 32; > > What's the point of shuffling this?
Just wanted to have all uninitialized variables declared before initialized ones. I will just leave this out in v4.
> > > + int arr_size = pmc_core_lpm_get_arr_size(maps); > > This would be better in a split manner, i.e. > > int arr_size; > > ... > > arr_size = ...;
Sure, I will make this change in v4
> > ... > > > + lpm_regs = kmalloc_array(arr_size, sizeof(*lpm_regs), GFP_KERNEL); > > + if(!lpm_regs) > > > + goto err; > > There is no point to have the label. Simple return will work.
Thought adding a label will help not to have multiple kfree() in the same function (one here at the check and one at the end of the for loop) I will add a return.
> > > - for (index = 0; tgl_lpm_maps[index]; index++) { > > + for (index = 0; maps[index]; index++) { > > Why not to reuse arr_size here?
Good point! I missed it. I will use the arr_size here to iterate.
> > > lpm_regs[index] = pmc_core_reg_read(pmcdev, offset); > > offset += 4; > > } > > -- > With Best Regards, > Andy Shevchenko >
| |