On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 at 17:36, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 01:39:30PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > Iterating through the idle state nodes in DT, to find out the number of
> > states that needs to be allocated is unnecessary, as it has already been
> > done from dt_init_idle_driver(). Therefore, drop the iteration and use the
> > number we already have at hand.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++-----------------
> > 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci.c b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci.c
> > index 2e91c8d6c211..1195a1056139 100644
> > --- a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci.c
> > +++ b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci.c
> > @@ -73,28 +73,22 @@ static int __init psci_dt_parse_state_node(struct device_node *np, u32 *state)
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > -static int __init psci_dt_cpu_init_idle(struct device_node *cpu_node, int cpu)
> > +static int __init psci_dt_cpu_init_idle(struct device_node *cpu_node,
> > + unsigned int state_nodes, int cpu)
>
> [super nit] Too much in the beginning of the patch to not notice this ;)
> May need some '(' alignment here and other places in general.
I was trying to find a consistent way of doing it, according to the
existing code, but I failed. :-)
Two cases exist where calls/functions crosses one line, one use solely
tabs and the other uses tab+whitespace to align "exactly". You are
saying that you prefer the latter? If so, I can adopt to that.
>
> > {
> > - int i, ret = 0, count = 0;
> > + int i, ret = 0;
> > u32 *psci_states;
> > struct device_node *state_node;
> >
> > - /* Count idle states */
> > - while ((state_node = of_parse_phandle(cpu_node, "cpu-idle-states",
> > - count))) {
> > - count++;
> > - of_node_put(state_node);
> > - }
> > -
> > - if (!count)
> > - return -ENODEV;
> > -
> > - psci_states = kcalloc(count, sizeof(*psci_states), GFP_KERNEL);
> > + psci_states = kcalloc(state_nodes, sizeof(*psci_states), GFP_KERNEL);
> > if (!psci_states)
> > return -ENOMEM;
> >
> > - for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
> > + for (i = 0; i < state_nodes; i++) {
> > state_node = of_parse_phandle(cpu_node, "cpu-idle-states", i);
>
> Can we move above to use of_get_cpu_state_node ? Since it also handles
> domain-idle-states.
>
> > + if (!state_node)
> > + break;
> > +
> > ret = psci_dt_parse_state_node(state_node, &psci_states[i]);
> > of_node_put(state_node);
> >
> > @@ -104,6 +98,11 @@ static int __init psci_dt_cpu_init_idle(struct device_node *cpu_node, int cpu)
> > pr_debug("psci-power-state %#x index %d\n", psci_states[i], i);
> > }
> >
> > + if (i != state_nodes) {
> > + ret = -ENODEV;
> > + goto free_mem;
> > + }
> > +
> > /* Idle states parsed correctly, initialize per-cpu pointer */
> > per_cpu(psci_power_state, cpu) = psci_states;
> > return 0;
> > @@ -113,7 +112,7 @@ static int __init psci_dt_cpu_init_idle(struct device_node *cpu_node, int cpu)
> > return ret;
> > }
> >
> > -static __init int psci_cpu_init_idle(unsigned int cpu)
> > +static __init int psci_cpu_init_idle(unsigned int cpu, unsigned int state_nodes)
>
> Does it make sense to rename it as state_count or something similar ?
Let me check to see if it makes sense to change it. Rebasing on top of
your recently submitted patch, might tell better.
> And it may need + 1 once we add wfi also as entry as suggested by
> Lorenzo.
Yep.
Kind regards
Uffe
