Hi Alexandre, On 06.11.2018 23:09, Alexandre Belloni wrote: > Hi Claudiu, > > On 05/11/2018 11:14:26+0000, [email protected] wrote: >> static int __init at91_poweroff_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >> @@ -154,16 +160,22 @@ static int __init at91_poweroff_probe(struct >> platform_device *pdev) >> u32 ddr_type; >> int ret; >> >> + at91_shdwc = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*at91_shdwc), GFP_KERNEL); >> + if (!at91_shdwc) >> + return -ENOMEM; >> + > > Is there any real benefit that will offset the time lost for that > allocation at boot time?
No, I haven't run benchmarks on this. I only wanted to have them grouped in one structure. Please let me know if you have some tests in mind. > > I understand you are then testing at91_shdwc to know whether the driver > already probed once. But, the driver will never probe twice as there is > only one shutdown controller on the SoC and anyway, If it was to probe > twice, it will still work as expected. I had in mind the scenario where the driver would be compiled as module. I know insmod already does this checking. I'm ok to remove this checking. I will do it in next version. With this I will also remove devm_kzalloc() of at91_shdwc. Thank you, Claudiu Beznea > >
