On 09-11-20, 08:08, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: > 09.11.2020 08:00, Viresh Kumar пишет: > > On 06-11-20, 21:41, Frank Lee wrote: > >> On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 9:18 PM Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> > >>> 06.11.2020 09:15, Viresh Kumar пишет: > >>>> Setting regulators for count as 0 doesn't sound good to me. > >>>> > >>>> But, I understand that you don't want to have that if (have_regulator) > >>>> check, and it is a fair request. What I will instead do is, allow all > >>>> dev_pm_opp_put*() API to start accepting a NULL pointer for the OPP > >>>> table and fail silently. And so you won't be required to have this > >>>> unwanted check. But you will be required to save the pointer returned > >>>> back by dev_pm_opp_set_regulators(), which is the right thing to do > >>>> anyways. > >>> > >>> Perhaps even a better variant could be to add a devm versions of the OPP > >>> API functions, then drivers won't need to care about storing the > >>> opp_table pointer if it's unused by drivers. > >> > >> I think so. The consumer may not be so concerned about the status of > >> these OPP tables. > >> If the driver needs to manage the release, it needs to add a pointer > >> to their driver global structure. > >> > >> Maybe it's worth having these devm interfaces for opp. > > > > Sure if there are enough users of this, I am all for it. I was fine > > with the patches you sent, just that there were not a lot of users of > > it and so I pushed them back. If we find that we have more users of it > > now, we can surely get that back. > > > > There was already attempt to add the devm? Could you please give me a > link to the patches? > > I already prepared a patch which adds the devm helpers. It helps to keep > code cleaner and readable. https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20201012135517.19468-1-frank@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ -- viresh _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
