Hi, On 02/19/2014 05:25 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Hans. > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 04:26:43PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: >> The devres usage are really 2 different issues: >> >> 1) There is the issue that we're getting clocks by index (this is by design as >> clk-names are not generic), but there is no devm_get_clk_by_index (or some >> such), this is a shortcoming of the clk-core, which needs a separate patch >> to fix. I would rather not delay this patch-set based on getting a patch >> into another subsys. > > Yes, that'd be my usual preference too. The only reason I'm hesitant > is because nobody seems to be too interested in long term aspect of > the code base and the only leverage I have seems to be rejecting > drivers until things become right. > >> Note that even with devm_get_clk_by_index we can unfortunately not get rid of >> ahci_platform_put_resources() as in Roger's follow-up patches it gets used for >> putting some runtime pm related resources too. >> >> I guess this argues for simply turning ahci_platform_get_resources into a >> devm_ahci_platform_get_resources doing its own devm handling, and then >> making ahci_platform_put_resources a private function called by the devm >> framework. If you agree I can do that for the next patch-set. > > Note that libata core already does something similar. Please take a > look at ata_host_alloc() for details. You don't really need to create > a separate devm_ prefixed variant. Just making the function register > devres automatically should be enough. If this is too much work, I'm > okay with deferring it until later if you promise to do it soonish. > Ok, I'll try to do this for the next revision. >> 2) In some comments you also seem to want devm variants of enable / disable >> resources, or at least have ahci_platform_put_resources do the disable >> automatically. The problem is that most of the functions called here need to >> be balanced, they increment / decrement usage counters in the clk / regulator >> subsystems, so we cannot simply unconditional do an ahci_platform_disable_resources >> in ahci_platform_put_resources >> >> Doing the disable automatically requires tracking the enable state, and doing this >> per resource, since the whole idea of having a separate ahci_platform_enable_resources >> is that some drivers may want to override its behavior doing things in a different >> order. >> >> To ensure proper tracking we would then need to offer ahci_platform_enable_regulator, >> etc. functions, and ensure that all drivers using the ahci_platform framework >> always go through these, rather then calling directly into the relevant framework. >> >> This is all doable, and I'm not against doing this but before spending a couple of >> hours coding this all up, I would like to hear back from you whether you would like >> to see this, or would rather keep things as is. > > Yes, in principle, I want every resource used by ahci_platform to be > devres managed. I *think* devres should be flexible enough to handle > what you're describing (each devres resource can have data for state > tracking and devres resources can be looked up and modified, so the > different orders should be okay) but if not I'd be happy to help > extend it so that it can. Most of the resources are already devres managed (I use devm functions to get them), the problem is not in freeing our reference to the resources, the problem is that we've sequences like this: devm_get_foo enable_foo disable_foo (automatic release foo) Where enable / disable can be done repeatedly (ie each suspend / resume). >From your review comments, I take it that you want the final disable_foo on driver release to happen automatically. My preference for this would be to extend the devres tracking already present in the relevant subsystems to keep track of the enable count done through a specific reference, to allow automatic disable (if needed) on release. But thinking more about this, I think that doing this automatically is a bad idea, because then we fixate the shutdown sequence to a certain order (the order in which we did the _get_foo for the resources) and the correct order may be device specific. So TL;DR: Yes to making things so that ahci_platform_put_resources gets done automatically, no to automating the disable calls. If I don't hear back from you, then I'll respin the patch-set assuming that you agree to the above. Regards, Hans -- 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
