Hi,
On Thursday, September 01, 2011, Jean Pihet wrote:
> Hi Rafael,
>
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 12:21 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx>
> >
> > To read the current PM QoS value for a given device we need to
> > make sure that the device's power.constraints object won't be
> > removed while we're doing that. For this reason, put the
> > operation under dev->power.lock and acquire the lock
> > around the initialization and removal of power.constraints.
> Ok.
>
> > Moreover, since we're using the value of power.constraints to
> > determine whether or not the object is present, the
> > power.constraints_state field isn't necessary any more and may be
> > removed. However, dev_pm_qos_add_request() needs to check if the
> > device is being removed from the system before allocating a new
> > PM QoS constraints object for it, so it has to use device_pm_lock()
> > and the device PM QoS initialization and destruction should be done
> > under device_pm_lock() as well.
> Ok that makes sense.
> The constraints_state field can be replaced by a combination of
> dev->power.constraints and list_empty(&dev->power.entry), which makes
> the code more compact and less redundant.
>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/base/power/main.c | 4 -
> > drivers/base/power/qos.c | 167 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
> > include/linux/pm.h | 8 --
> > include/linux/pm_qos.h | 3
> > 4 files changed, 101 insertions(+), 81 deletions(-)
> >
> > Index: linux/drivers/base/power/qos.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux.orig/drivers/base/power/qos.c
> > +++ linux/drivers/base/power/qos.c
> > @@ -30,15 +30,6 @@
> ...
>
> >
> > @@ -178,8 +202,8 @@ void dev_pm_qos_constraints_destroy(stru
> > *
> > * Returns 1 if the aggregated constraint value has changed,
> > * 0 if the aggregated constraint value has not changed,
> > - * -EINVAL in case of wrong parameters, -ENODEV if the device has been
> > - * removed from the system
> > + * -EINVAL in case of wrong parameters, -ENOMEM if there's not enough memory
> > + * to allocate for data structures.
> Why not use -ENODEV in case there is no device?
I don't think it's useful for the caller. If the device is gone, the
constraing simply doesn't matter, so there's no error to handle.
> > */
> > int dev_pm_qos_add_request(struct device *dev, struct dev_pm_qos_request *req,
> > s32 value)
> > @@ -195,28 +219,35 @@ int dev_pm_qos_add_request(struct device
> > return -EINVAL;
> > }
> >
> > - mutex_lock(&dev_pm_qos_mtx);
> > req->dev = dev;
> >
> > - /* Return if the device has been removed */
> > - if (req->dev->power.constraints_state == DEV_PM_QOS_NO_DEVICE) {
> > - ret = -ENODEV;
> > - goto out;
> > - }
> > + device_pm_lock();
> > + mutex_lock(&dev_pm_qos_mtx);
> >
> > - /*
> > - * Allocate the constraints data on the first call to add_request,
> > - * i.e. only if the data is not already allocated and if the device has
> > - * not been removed
> > - */
> > - if (dev->power.constraints_state == DEV_PM_QOS_DEVICE_PRESENT)
> > - ret = dev_pm_qos_constraints_allocate(dev);
> > + if (dev->power.constraints) {
> > + device_pm_unlock();
> > + } else {
> > + if (list_empty(&dev->power.entry)) {
> > + /* The device has been removed from the system. */
> > + device_pm_unlock();
> > + goto out;
> 0 is silently returned in case the device has been removed. Is that
> the intention?
Pretty much it is. Is that a problem?
Rafael
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
