09.11.2020 08:00, Viresh Kumar пишет:
On 06-11-20, 21:41, Frank Lee wrote:
On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 9:18 PM Dmitry Osipenko digetx@gmail.com wrote:
06.11.2020 09:15, Viresh Kumar пишет:
Setting regulators for count as 0 doesn't sound good to me.
But, I understand that you don't want to have that if (have_regulator) check, and it is a fair request. What I will instead do is, allow all dev_pm_opp_put*() API to start accepting a NULL pointer for the OPP table and fail silently. And so you won't be required to have this unwanted check. But you will be required to save the pointer returned back by dev_pm_opp_set_regulators(), which is the right thing to do anyways.
Perhaps even a better variant could be to add a devm versions of the OPP API functions, then drivers won't need to care about storing the opp_table pointer if it's unused by drivers.
I think so. The consumer may not be so concerned about the status of these OPP tables. If the driver needs to manage the release, it needs to add a pointer to their driver global structure.
Maybe it's worth having these devm interfaces for opp.
Sure if there are enough users of this, I am all for it. I was fine with the patches you sent, just that there were not a lot of users of it and so I pushed them back. If we find that we have more users of it now, we can surely get that back.
There was already attempt to add the devm? Could you please give me a link to the patches?
I already prepared a patch which adds the devm helpers. It helps to keep code cleaner and readable.