On 1 March 2016 at 22:15, Lina Iyer <lina.iyer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Abstract genpd lock/unlock calls, in preparation for domain specific
> locks added in the following patches.
>
> Cc: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Kevin Hilman <khilman@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Krzysztof Kozłowski <k.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Lina Iyer <lina.iyer@xxxxxxxxxx>
[...]
> +struct genpd_lock_fns;
> +
> struct generic_pm_domain {
> struct dev_pm_domain domain; /* PM domain operations */
> struct list_head gpd_list_node; /* Node in the global PM domains list */
> struct list_head master_links; /* Links with PM domain as a master */
> struct list_head slave_links; /* Links with PM domain as a slave */
> struct list_head dev_list; /* List of devices */
> - struct mutex lock;
> struct dev_power_governor *gov;
> struct work_struct power_off_work;
> const char *name;
> @@ -74,6 +75,8 @@ struct generic_pm_domain {
> struct genpd_power_state *states;
> unsigned int state_count; /* number of states */
> unsigned int state_idx; /* state that genpd will go to when off */
> + const struct genpd_lock_fns *lock_fns;
> + struct mutex mlock;
Nitpick: I wouldn't mind if you name this mtx_lock, as it would be a
bit more consistent with the corresponding helper functions.
>
> };
>
> --
> 2.1.4
>
Otherwise this looks good to me!
Acked-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx>
One issue I noticed though, this patch isn't based upon Rafael's
latest tree, thus it can't be applied as is. Could you perhaps
re-base?
I suppose that's needed for some of the other patches as well. I think
we should split up the dependency a bit better so we can move forward
with standalone patches.
Kind regards
Uffe
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
