On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 06:33:00PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> 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.
>
I am not too picky on these, just found it in the beginning of the patch
and hence mentioned it. If it was in the middle, I am sure I wouldn't have
noticed.
> >
> > > {
> > > - 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.
>
Sure.
--
Regards,
Sudeep
