On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 03:11:33PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> +static int cti_pm_setup(struct cti_drvdata *drvdata)
> +{
> + int ret;
> +
> + if (drvdata->ctidev.cpu == -1)
> + return 0;
> +
> + if (nr_cti_cpu)
> + goto done;
> +
> + cpus_read_lock();
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
One thing which I do wonder is why we have locking here but not in the
cti_pm_release() function. That was how the original code was so the
patch doesn't change anything, but I am curious.
> + ret = cpuhp_setup_state_nocalls_cpuslocked(
> + CPUHP_AP_ARM_CORESIGHT_CTI_STARTING,
> + "arm/coresight_cti:starting",
> + cti_starting_cpu, cti_dying_cpu);
> + if (ret) {
> + cpus_read_unlock();
> + return ret;
> + }
> +
> + ret = cpu_pm_register_notifier(&cti_cpu_pm_nb);
> + cpus_read_unlock();
> + if (ret) {
> + cpuhp_remove_state_nocalls(CPUHP_AP_ARM_CORESIGHT_CTI_STARTING);
> + return ret;
> + }
> +
> +done:
> + nr_cti_cpu++;
> + cti_cpu_drvdata[drvdata->ctidev.cpu] = drvdata;
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> /* release PM registrations */
> static void cti_pm_release(struct cti_drvdata *drvdata)
> {
> - if (drvdata->ctidev.cpu >= 0) {
> - if (--nr_cti_cpu == 0) {
> - cpu_pm_unregister_notifier(&cti_cpu_pm_nb);
> + if (drvdata->ctidev.cpu == -1)
> + return;
>
> - cpuhp_remove_state_nocalls(
> - CPUHP_AP_ARM_CORESIGHT_CTI_STARTING);
> - }
> - cti_cpu_drvdata[drvdata->ctidev.cpu] = NULL;
> + cti_cpu_drvdata[drvdata->ctidev.cpu] = drvdata;
> + if (--nr_cti_cpu == 0) {
> + cpu_pm_unregister_notifier(&cti_cpu_pm_nb);
> + cpuhp_remove_state_nocalls(CPUHP_AP_ARM_CORESIGHT_CTI_STARTING);
> }
> }
regards,
dan carpenter
