On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 at 11:15, Viresh Kumar <[email protected]> wrote: > > Separate out _genpd_set_performance_state() and > _genpd_reeval_performance_state() from > dev_pm_genpd_set_performance_state() to handle performance state update > related stuff. This will be used by a later commit. > > Tested-by: Rajendra Nayak <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Ulf Hansson <[email protected]> Nitpick: Would be nice to remove the beginning "_" from both _genpd_reeval_performance_state() and _genpd_set_performance_state(), as to be consistent with existing function naming in genpd. However, it's not a big deal and can be done on top. > --- > drivers/base/power/domain.c | 95 +++++++++++++++++++++---------------- > 1 file changed, 55 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/base/power/domain.c b/drivers/base/power/domain.c > index 1e98c637e069..808ba41b6580 100644 > --- a/drivers/base/power/domain.c > +++ b/drivers/base/power/domain.c > @@ -239,6 +239,56 @@ static void genpd_update_accounting(struct > generic_pm_domain *genpd) > static inline void genpd_update_accounting(struct generic_pm_domain *genpd) > {} > #endif > > +static int _genpd_reeval_performance_state(struct generic_pm_domain *genpd, > + unsigned int state) > +{ > + struct generic_pm_domain_data *pd_data; > + struct pm_domain_data *pdd; > + > + /* New requested state is same as Max requested state */ > + if (state == genpd->performance_state) > + return state; > + > + /* New requested state is higher than Max requested state */ > + if (state > genpd->performance_state) > + return state; > + > + /* Traverse all devices within the domain */ > + list_for_each_entry(pdd, &genpd->dev_list, list_node) { > + pd_data = to_gpd_data(pdd); > + > + if (pd_data->performance_state > state) > + state = pd_data->performance_state; > + } > + > + /* > + * We aren't propagating performance state changes of a subdomain to > its > + * masters as we don't have hardware that needs it. Over that, the > + * performance states of subdomain and its masters may not have > + * one-to-one mapping and would require additional information. We can > + * get back to this once we have hardware that needs it. For that > + * reason, we don't have to consider performance state of the > subdomains > + * of genpd here. > + */ > + return state; > +} > + > +static int _genpd_set_performance_state(struct generic_pm_domain *genpd, > + unsigned int state) > +{ > + int ret; > + > + if (state == genpd->performance_state) > + return 0; > + > + ret = genpd->set_performance_state(genpd, state); > + if (ret) > + return ret; > + > + genpd->performance_state = state; > + return 0; > +} > + > /** > * dev_pm_genpd_set_performance_state- Set performance state of device's > power > * domain. > @@ -257,10 +307,9 @@ static inline void genpd_update_accounting(struct > generic_pm_domain *genpd) {} > int dev_pm_genpd_set_performance_state(struct device *dev, unsigned int > state) > { > struct generic_pm_domain *genpd; > - struct generic_pm_domain_data *gpd_data, *pd_data; > - struct pm_domain_data *pdd; > + struct generic_pm_domain_data *gpd_data; > unsigned int prev; > - int ret = 0; > + int ret; > > genpd = dev_to_genpd(dev); > if (IS_ERR(genpd)) > @@ -281,45 +330,11 @@ int dev_pm_genpd_set_performance_state(struct device > *dev, unsigned int state) > prev = gpd_data->performance_state; > gpd_data->performance_state = state; > > - /* New requested state is same as Max requested state */ > - if (state == genpd->performance_state) > - goto unlock; > - > - /* New requested state is higher than Max requested state */ > - if (state > genpd->performance_state) > - goto update_state; > - > - /* Traverse all devices within the domain */ > - list_for_each_entry(pdd, &genpd->dev_list, list_node) { > - pd_data = to_gpd_data(pdd); > - > - if (pd_data->performance_state > state) > - state = pd_data->performance_state; > - } > - > - if (state == genpd->performance_state) > - goto unlock; > - > - /* > - * We aren't propagating performance state changes of a subdomain to > its > - * masters as we don't have hardware that needs it. Over that, the > - * performance states of subdomain and its masters may not have > - * one-to-one mapping and would require additional information. We can > - * get back to this once we have hardware that needs it. For that > - * reason, we don't have to consider performance state of the > subdomains > - * of genpd here. > - */ > - > -update_state: > - ret = genpd->set_performance_state(genpd, state); > - if (ret) { > + state = _genpd_reeval_performance_state(genpd, state); > + ret = _genpd_set_performance_state(genpd, state); > + if (ret) > gpd_data->performance_state = prev; > - goto unlock; > - } > > - genpd->performance_state = state; > - > -unlock: > genpd_unlock(genpd); > > return ret; > -- > 2.19.1.568.g152ad8e3369a >
