Hi,
On Wed, 2019-07-24 at 21:07 +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 02:20:06PM +0200, Artur Świgoń wrote:
This patch adds a new static function, exynos_bus_profile_init(), extracted from exynos_bus_probe().
Signed-off-by: Artur Świgoń a.swigon@partner.samsung.com
drivers/devfreq/exynos-bus.c | 106 ++++++++++++++++++++--------------- 1 file changed, 60 insertions(+), 46 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/devfreq/exynos-bus.c b/drivers/devfreq/exynos-bus.c index d9f377912c10..d8f1efaf2d49 100644 --- a/drivers/devfreq/exynos-bus.c +++ b/drivers/devfreq/exynos-bus.c @@ -372,12 +372,69 @@ static int exynos_bus_parse_of(struct device_node *np, return ret; }
+static int exynos_bus_profile_init(struct exynos_bus *bus,
struct devfreq_dev_profile *profile)+{
- struct device *dev = bus->dev;
- struct devfreq_simple_ondemand_data *ondemand_data;
- int ret;
- /* Initialize the struct profile and governor data for parent device */
- profile->polling_ms = 50;
- profile->target = exynos_bus_target;
- profile->get_dev_status = exynos_bus_get_dev_status;
- profile->exit = exynos_bus_exit;
- ondemand_data = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*ondemand_data), GFP_KERNEL);
- if (!ondemand_data) {
ret = -ENOMEM;goto err;Just return proper error code. Less lines, obvious code since you do not have any cleanup in error path.
I was advised to avoid modifying code being moved (in one patch). I do make changes in these places in patch 04/11, i.e. change the original label 'err' to 'out'. What's your opinion on making the proposed changes to patches 01 and 02 (s/goto err/return ret/) in patch 04 instead?
- /* Register opp_notifier to catch the change of OPP */
- ret = devm_devfreq_register_opp_notifier(dev, bus->devfreq);
- if (ret < 0) {
dev_err(dev, "failed to register opp notifier\n");goto err;The same - return err.
Best regards, Krzysztof
Best regards,