On 15/06/16 15:38, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On 4 March 2016 at 12:23, Jon Hunter <jonathanh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> To remove a PM domain from the system, it is necessary to ensure
>> that any PM domain providers associated with the PM domain have
>> been removed. Otherwise it could be possible to obtain a pointer
>> to a PM domain structure that has been removed.
>>
>> PM domains now have a reference to the pointer for the PM domain
>> provider's data variable. Add a function so that a PM domain can
>> remove a PM domain provider by referencing the data pointer.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jon Hunter <jonathanh@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/base/power/domain.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> include/linux/pm_domain.h | 2 ++
>> 2 files changed, 26 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/base/power/domain.c b/drivers/base/power/domain.c
>> index 72055fef6256..438885f2455f 100644
>> --- a/drivers/base/power/domain.c
>> +++ b/drivers/base/power/domain.c
>> @@ -1738,6 +1738,30 @@ void of_genpd_del_provider(struct device_node *np)
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(of_genpd_del_provider);
>>
>> /**
>> + * of_genpd_del_provider_by_data() - Remove a registered PM domain provider
>> + * @data: Pointer to the data associated with the PM domain provider
>> + *
>> + * Look up a PM domain provider based upon a pointer to it's data and
>> + * remove the PM domain provider from the list of providers.
>> + */
>> +void of_genpd_del_provider_by_data(void *data)
>> +{
>> + struct of_genpd_provider *c, *cp;
>> +
>> + mutex_lock(&of_genpd_mutex);
>> + list_for_each_entry_safe(cp, c, &of_genpd_providers, link) {
>> + if (cp->data == data) {
>> + list_del(&cp->link);
>> + of_node_put(cp->node);
>> + kfree(cp);
>> + break;
>> + }
>> + }
>> + mutex_unlock(&of_genpd_mutex);
>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(of_genpd_del_provider_by_data);
>> +
>> +/**
>> * of_genpd_get_from_provider() - Look-up PM domain
>> * @genpdspec: OF phandle args to use for look-up
>> *
>> diff --git a/include/linux/pm_domain.h b/include/linux/pm_domain.h
>> index bed84413546f..7b7921a65cb0 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/pm_domain.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/pm_domain.h
>> @@ -199,6 +199,7 @@ int of_genpd_add_provider_simple(struct device_node *np,
>> int of_genpd_add_provider_onecell(struct device_node *np,
>> struct genpd_onecell_data *data);
>> void of_genpd_del_provider(struct device_node *np);
>
> There's currently only one user of of_genpd_del_provider().
>
> Could this patch just convert that user to the new API, so we don't
> need to keep both the legacy and new one?
>
> I guess we could then just stick to the name "of_genpd_del_provider()".
I had a look at this and to do that we would end up with
of_genpd_del_provider(struct device_node *np, void *data) where the user
should only pass one of the arguments. It seems a bit odd. However,
unless I have forgotten something, I wonder if we should just make
of_genpd_del_provider_by_name() a local function and not export this at
all? It seems more natural for users to delete a provider by the
device_node than by name rather than the data argument.
The only problem I see with making of_genpd_del_provider_by_name() local
is that I need to add a prototype for the function at the top of the
domain.c source file so that it builds because __pm_genpd_remove() is
defined above it. Yes I could move __pm_genpd_remove() to the bottom of
the file but then it is not located next to pm_genpd_init() which seems odd.
Let me know what you think.
Cheers
Jon
--
nvpublic
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
