On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 4:53 AM, Peter Chen <hzpeterchen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 03:23:12AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> > @@ -0,0 +1,237 @@ >> > +/* >> > + * core.c power sequence core file >> > + * >> > + * Copyright (C) 2016 Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. >> > + * Author: Peter Chen <peter.chen@xxxxxxx> >> > + * >> > + * This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify >> > + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 of >> > + * the License as published by the Free Software Foundation. >> > + * >> > + * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, >> > + * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of >> > + * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the >> > + * GNU General Public License for more details. >> > + * >> > + * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License >> > + * along with this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>. >> >> The last paragraph is not necessary AFAICS. > > I just copy it from: > > https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.en.html > > If you are concerns about it, I can delete it. It is redundant, so yes, please. >> > + >> > +static struct pwrseq *pwrseq_find_available_instance(struct device_node *np) >> > +{ >> > + struct pwrseq *pwrseq; >> > + >> > + list_for_each_entry(pwrseq, &pwrseq_list, node) { >> > + if (pwrseq->used) >> > + continue; >> > + >> > + /* compare compatible string for pwrseq node */ >> > + if (of_match_node(pwrseq->pwrseq_of_match_table, np)) { >> > + pwrseq->used = true; >> > + return pwrseq; >> > + } >> > + >> > + /* return generic pwrseq instance */ >> > + if (!strcmp(pwrseq->pwrseq_of_match_table->compatible, >> > + "generic")) { >> > + pr_debug("using generic pwrseq instance for %s\n", >> > + np->full_name); >> > + pwrseq->used = true; >> > + return pwrseq; >> > + } >> > + } >> > + pr_warn("Can't find any pwrseq instances for %s\n", np->full_name); >> >> pr_debug() ? > > If there is no pwrseq instance for that node, the power sequence on routine will > return fail, so I think an warning message is useful for user. Useful in what way? How is the user supposed to know what happened from this message? >> >> > + >> > + return NULL; >> > +} >> > + >> > +/** >> > + * of_pwrseq_on: do power sequence on for device node >> >> of_pwrseq_on - Carry out power sequence on for device node >> >> Argument description should follow this line. >> >> > + * >> > + * This API is used to power on single device, if the host >> > + * controller only needs to handle one child device (this device >> > + * node points to), use this API. If multiply devices are needed >> > + * to handle on bus, use of_pwrseq_on_list. >> >> That's unclear. >> >> What about "Carry out a single device power on. If multiple devices >> need to be handled, use of_pwrseq_on_list() instead." >> >> > + * >> > + * @np: the device node would like to power on >> > + * >> > + * On successful, it returns pwrseq instance, otherwise an error value. >> >> "Return a pointer to the power sequence instance on success, or an >> error code otherwise." >> > > Ok, will change. > >> > + */ >> > +struct pwrseq *of_pwrseq_on(struct device_node *np) >> > +{ >> > + struct pwrseq *pwrseq; >> > + int ret; >> > + >> > + pwrseq = pwrseq_find_available_instance(np); >> >> What does guarantee the integrity of ths list at this point? > > Once the use selects the specific pwrseq library, the library will > create an empty one instance during the initialization, and it > will be called at postcore_initcall, the device driver has not > probed yet. Which doesn't matter really, because the list is global and some other driver using it might have been probed already. You have a mutex here and it is used for add/remove. Why isn't it used for list browsing? > >> >> > + if (!pwrseq) >> > + return ERR_PTR(-ENONET); >> >> ENOENT I suppose? >> > > Good catch, thanks. > >> > +/** >> > + * of_pwrseq_off: do power sequence off for this pwrseq instance >> > + * >> > + * This API is used to power off single device, it is the opposite >> > + * operation for of_pwrseq_on. >> > + * >> > + * @pwrseq: the pwrseq instance which related device would like to be off >> > + */ >> > +void of_pwrseq_off(struct pwrseq *pwrseq) >> > +{ >> > + pwrseq_off(pwrseq); >> > + pwrseq_put(pwrseq); >> > +} >> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(of_pwrseq_off); >> >> What happens if two code paths attempt to turn the same power sequence >> off in parallel? Can it ever happen? If not, then why not? >> > > I don't think the same pwrseq instance off will be called at the same > time, the of_pwrseq_off is supposed to be only called at error path > during power-on and at device power-off routine, and only the power-on is > successful, the device can be created, if the device is not created, > its power-off routine is not supposed to be called. > >> > + >> > +/** >> > + * of_pwrseq_on_list: do power sequence on for list >> > + * >> > + * This API is used to power on multiple devices at single bus. >> > + * If there are several devices on bus (eg, USB bus), uses this >> > + * this API. Otherwise, use of_pwrseq_on. After the device >> > + * is powered on successfully, it will be added to pwrseq list for >> > + * this bus. >> > + * >> > + * @np: the device node would like to power on >> > + * @head: the list head for pwrseq list on this bus >> > + * >> > + * On successful, it returns 0, otherwise an error value. >> >> Please format the kerneldoc comment in a usual way. >> > > Ok. > >> > + */ >> > +int of_pwrseq_on_list(struct device_node *np, struct list_head *head) >> > +{ >> > + struct pwrseq *pwrseq; >> > + struct pwrseq_list_per_dev *pwrseq_list_node; >> > + >> > + pwrseq = of_pwrseq_on(np); >> > + if (IS_ERR(pwrseq)) >> > + return PTR_ERR(pwrseq); >> > + >> > + pwrseq_list_node = kzalloc(sizeof(*pwrseq_list_node), GFP_KERNEL); >> >> Why don't you allocate memory before turning the power sequence on? >> > > This list is only for power sequence on instance, if I allocate memory before > power sequence on, I need to free it if power sequence on is failed. So why is that a problem? >> > + if (!pwrseq_list_node) { >> > + of_pwrseq_off(pwrseq); >> > + return -ENOMEM; >> > + } >> > + pwrseq_list_node->pwrseq = pwrseq; >> > + list_add(&pwrseq_list_node->list, head); >> > + >> > + return 0; >> > +} >> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(of_pwrseq_on_list); >> >> So the caller is supposed to provide a list head of the list to put >> the power sequence object into on success, right? > > Yes > >> >> Can you explain to me what the idea here is, please? >> > > Taking USB devices as an example, there is one power sequence on list > per bus, and there are several USB devices on the bus. Using a list, > we can record which device is powered sequence on, and only powers > sequence off which has already powered sequence on at error path, and > power sequence off all devices on the bus when the bus (eg, USB HUB) > is removed. (eg, when the bus driver is removed) Well, I'm not sure I understand this correctly. What about system suspend/resume and such, for instance? > Usually, the power sequence is only needed for hard-wired devices, > the power sequence on is carried out during the bus driver probed, > and off if carried out during the bus driver is removed, > of_pwrseq_on_list/of_powerseq_off_list is not supposed to be > called during the other bus driver life cycles. > >> Also, what's the protection of the list against concurrent access? >> > > I will add comment that the list creator needs to take consideration > of concurrent access if exists. > >> > + >> > +/** >> > + * of_pwrseq_off_list: do power sequence off for the list >> > + * >> > + * This API is used to power off all devices on this bus, it is >> > + * the opposite operation for of_pwrseq_on_list. >> > + * >> > + * @head: the list head for pwrseq instance list on this bus >> > + */ >> > +void of_pwrseq_off_list(struct list_head *head) >> > +{ >> > + struct pwrseq *pwrseq; >> > + struct pwrseq_list_per_dev *pwrseq_list_node, *tmp_node; >> > + >> > + list_for_each_entry_safe(pwrseq_list_node, tmp_node, head, list) { >> > + pwrseq = pwrseq_list_node->pwrseq; >> > + of_pwrseq_off(pwrseq); >> > + list_del(&pwrseq_list_node->list); >> > + kfree(pwrseq_list_node); >> > + } >> > +} >> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(of_pwrseq_off_list); >> >> This looks horribly inefficient. >> >> Is the user expected to create the list from scratch every time things >> are turned on? >> > > Like I explained above, the power sequence is for hard-wired device on > board, the list creation and remove are only carried out on driver's > probe and remove. Which driver exactly are you referring to? Thanks, Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
