Re: [PATCH 2/7] PM / Domains: Make it possible to use per-device .active_wakeup()

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Wednesday, November 09, 2011, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Nov 2011, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> 
> > On Tuesday, November 08, 2011, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> > > On Mon, 7 Nov 2011, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > 
> > > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx>
> > > > 
> > > > The current generic PM domains code requires that the same
> > > > .active_wakeup() device callback routine be used for all devices in
> > > > the given domain, which is inflexible and may not cover some specific
> > > > use cases.  For this reason, make it possible to use device specific
> > > > .active_wakeup() callback routines by adding a corresponding callback
> > > > pointer to struct generic_pm_domain_data.  To reduce code duplication
> > > > use struct gpd_dev_ops to represent PM domain device callbacks as
> > > > well as device-specific ones and add a macro for defining routines
> > > > that will execute those callbacks.
> > > > 
> > > > Modify the shmobile's power domains code to allow drivers to use
> > > > their own .active_wakeup() callback routines.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > >  arch/arm/mach-shmobile/pm-sh7372.c |   11 ++++---
> > > >  drivers/base/power/domain.c        |   54 ++++++++++++++++++-------------------
> > > >  include/linux/pm_domain.h          |   15 ++++------
> > > >  3 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 39 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > Index: linux/include/linux/pm_domain.h
> > > > ===================================================================
> > > > --- linux.orig/include/linux/pm_domain.h
> > > > +++ linux/include/linux/pm_domain.h
> > > > @@ -23,6 +23,12 @@ struct dev_power_governor {
> > > >  	bool (*power_down_ok)(struct dev_pm_domain *domain);
> > > >  };
> > > >  
> > > > +struct gpd_dev_ops {
> > > > +	int (*start)(struct device *dev);
> > > > +	int (*stop)(struct device *dev);
> > > > +	bool (*active_wakeup)(struct device *dev);
> > > > +};
> > > > +
> > > >  struct generic_pm_domain {
> > > >  	struct dev_pm_domain domain;	/* PM domain operations */
> > > >  	struct list_head gpd_list_node;	/* Node in the global PM domains list */
> > > > @@ -45,9 +51,7 @@ struct generic_pm_domain {
> > > >  	bool dev_irq_safe;	/* Device callbacks are IRQ-safe */
> > > >  	int (*power_off)(struct generic_pm_domain *domain);
> > > >  	int (*power_on)(struct generic_pm_domain *domain);
> > > > -	int (*start_device)(struct device *dev);
> > > > -	int (*stop_device)(struct device *dev);
> > > > -	bool (*active_wakeup)(struct device *dev);
> > > > +	struct gpd_dev_ops dev_ops;
> > > 
> > > Wouldn't it be better to merge patches 1 and 2?
> > 
> > First, why would it?
> 
> Because (1) AFAICS both these patches add new logically rather close to 
> each other methods to the same existing API,

Well, in fact .active_wakeup() was added for a totally different reason,
but I agree that now it _looks_ analogous.

> and (2) it would reduce the 
> total changed lines count and simplify reading of the patch(es), because 
> your second patch moves around and modifies lines of code, that the first 
> patch adds.

Well, I can fold [2/7] into [1/7] if that helps.

Thanks,
Rafael
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/