On 05/30/2018 06:14 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> [...]
>
>>>> +
>>>> +static DEFINE_MUTEX(rpmpd_lock);
>>>> +
>>>> +/* msm8996 RPM powerdomains */
>>>> +DEFINE_RPMPD_CORN_SMPA(msm8996, vddcx, vddcx_ao, 1);
>>>> +DEFINE_RPMPD_CORN_SMPA(msm8996, vddmx, vddmx_ao, 2);
>>>> +DEFINE_RPMPD_CORN_LDOA(msm8996, vddsscx, 26);
>>>> +
>>>> +DEFINE_RPMPD_VFC_SMPA(msm8996, vddcx_vfc, 1);
>>>> +DEFINE_RPMPD_VFC_LDOA(msm8996, vddsscx_vfc, 26);
>>>> +
>>>> +static struct rpmpd *msm8996_rpmpds[] = {
>>>> + [0] = &msm8996_vddcx,
>>>> + [1] = &msm8996_vddcx_ao,
>>>> + [2] = &msm8996_vddcx_vfc,
>>>> + [3] = &msm8996_vddmx,
>>>> + [4] = &msm8996_vddmx_ao,
>>>> + [5] = &msm8996_vddsscx,
>>>> + [6] = &msm8996_vddsscx_vfc,
>>>> +};
>>>
>>> It's not my call, but honestly the above all macros makes the code
>>> less readable.
>>
>> This is all static data per SoC. The macros will keep the new additions
>> needed for every new SoC to a minimal. Currently this supports only
>> msm8996.
>
> Right, that's fine then.
>
>>
>>>
>>> Anyway, I think you should convert to allocate these structs
>>> dynamically from the heap (kzalloc/kcalloc), instead of statically as
>>> above.
>
> However, I assume this is still doable!?
Perhaps it is, but is there any specific advantage of constructing these structures
dynamically vs statically, given they are static data?
Most other powerdomain/clock/regulator drivers I see do it statically, and thats
what I followed.
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation
--
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
