Hi,
On Aug 08, 2024 at 16:29:12 +0530, Dikshita Agarwal wrote:
>
>
> On 8/8/2024 4:25 PM, Dikshita Agarwal wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 8/8/2024 4:11 PM, Dhruva Gole wrote:
> >> On Aug 07, 2024 at 12:45:46 +0530, Dikshita Agarwal wrote:
> >>> Add the devres-enabled version of dev_pm_domain_attach|detach_list.
> >>> If client drivers use devm_pm_domain_attach_list() to attach the
> >>> PM domains, devm_pm_domain_detach_list() will be invoked implicitly
> >>> during remove phase.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Dikshita Agarwal <quic_dikshita@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>> drivers/base/power/common.c | 44 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>> include/linux/pm_domain.h | 13 +++++++++++++
> >>> 2 files changed, 57 insertions(+)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/base/power/common.c b/drivers/base/power/common.c
> >>> index 327d168..729d6c2 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/base/power/common.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/base/power/common.c
> >>> @@ -277,6 +277,50 @@ int dev_pm_domain_attach_list(struct device *dev,
> >>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(dev_pm_domain_attach_list);
> >>>
> >>> /**
> >>> + * devm_pm_domain_detach_list - devres-enabled version of dev_pm_domain_detach_list.
> >>> + * @_list: The list of PM domains to detach.
> >>> + *
> >>> + * This function reverse the actions from devm_pm_domain_attach_list().
> >>> + * it will be invoked during the remove phase from drivers implicitly if driver
> >>> + * uses devm_pm_domain_attach_list() to attach the PM domains.
> >>> + */
> >>> +void devm_pm_domain_detach_list(void *_list)
My problem is with the type of parameter used being void, why void?
Why not be explicit about it and call it dev_pm_domain_list *list like
the non-devres version of the API?
> >>> +{
> >>> + struct dev_pm_domain_list *list = _list;
> >>> +
> >>> + dev_pm_domain_detach_list(list);
> >>> +}
> >>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(devm_pm_domain_detach_list);
> >>> +
> >>> +/**
> >>> + * devm_pm_domain_attach_list - devres-enabled version of dev_pm_domain_attach_list
> >>> + * @dev: The device used to lookup the PM domains for.
> >>> + * @data: The data used for attaching to the PM domains.
> >>> + * @list: An out-parameter with an allocated list of attached PM domains.
> >>> + *
> >>> + * NOTE: this will also handle calling devm_pm_domain_detach_list() for
> >>> + * you during remove phase.
> >>> + *
> >>> + * Returns the number of attached PM domains or a negative error code in case of
> >>> + * a failure.
> >>> + */
> >>> +int devm_pm_domain_attach_list(struct device *dev,
> >>> + const struct dev_pm_domain_attach_data *data,
> >>> + struct dev_pm_domain_list **list)
> >>> +{
> >>> + int ret, num_pds = 0;
> >>
> >> Do we require this =0? In the very next line you're initing this anyway.
> >>
> > That's correct, will fix this. Thanks.
> >>> +
> >>> + num_pds = dev_pm_domain_attach_list(dev, data, list);
> >>> +
> >>> + ret = devm_add_action_or_reset(dev, devm_pm_domain_detach_list, *list);
> >>> + if (ret)
> >>> + return ret;
> >>> +
> >>> + return num_pds;
> >>> +}
> >>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(devm_pm_domain_attach_list);
> >>> +
> >>> +/**
> >>> * dev_pm_domain_detach - Detach a device from its PM domain.
> >>> * @dev: Device to detach.
> >>> * @power_off: Used to indicate whether we should power off the device.
> >>> diff --git a/include/linux/pm_domain.h b/include/linux/pm_domain.h
> >>> index 772d328..efd517017 100644
> >>> --- a/include/linux/pm_domain.h
> >>> +++ b/include/linux/pm_domain.h
> >>> @@ -450,8 +450,12 @@ struct device *dev_pm_domain_attach_by_name(struct device *dev,
> >>> int dev_pm_domain_attach_list(struct device *dev,
> >>> const struct dev_pm_domain_attach_data *data,
> >>> struct dev_pm_domain_list **list);
> >>> +int devm_pm_domain_attach_list(struct device *dev,
> >>> + const struct dev_pm_domain_attach_data *data,
> >>> + struct dev_pm_domain_list **list);
> >>> void dev_pm_domain_detach(struct device *dev, bool power_off);
> >>> void dev_pm_domain_detach_list(struct dev_pm_domain_list *list);
> >>> +void devm_pm_domain_detach_list(void *list);
> >>
> >> Why not just call it dev_pm_domain_list *list? Why make it void? I am a
> >> bit confused.
> >>
> > This comment is not clear to me, could you pls elaborate?
> Ah! Sorry, pls ignore my below comment. But can you still explain the
> concern here?
I have explained above near the func definition.
--
Best regards,
Dhruva Gole <d-gole@xxxxxx>
