Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752819AbdGHInR (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 Jul 2017 04:43:17 -0400 Received: from mail-pg0-f68.google.com ([74.125.83.68]:36406 "EHLO mail-pg0-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752751AbdGHInO (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 Jul 2017 04:43:14 -0400 Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2017 18:42:53 +1000 From: Nicholas Piggin To: Gautham R Shenoy Cc: Michael Ellerman , Michael Neuling , Vaidyanathan Srinivasan , Shilpasri G Bhat , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Akshay Adiga , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] powernv:idle: Move device-tree parsing to one place. Message-ID: <20170708184253.3f5f6f87@roar.ozlabs.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <20170707112539.GA8913@in.ibm.com> References: <1499272696-28751-1-git-send-email-ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1499272696-28751-2-git-send-email-ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20170707005340.003c530b@roar.ozlabs.ibm.com> <20170707112539.GA8913@in.ibm.com> Organization: IBM X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.14.1 (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1127 Lines: 34 On Fri, 7 Jul 2017 16:55:39 +0530 Gautham R Shenoy wrote: > Hello Nicholas, > > On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 12:53:40AM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote: > > I wouldn't have the wrapper function... but it's your code so it's > > up to you. One thing though is that this function you have called get_ > > just to return the pointer, but it does not take a reference or > > allocate memory or initialize the structure. Other functions with the > > same prefix do such things. Can we make something more consistent? > > I agree with the wrapper function. But then the alternative was to > declare this variable as an extern so that cpuidle can access it. Is > that preferable ? Yeah I think that's fine. [snip > > [snip] > > > > There's a lot of code movement, I haven't reviewed it all carefully, but > > it looks good in general. I'll apply the patches and check the result > > in the next few days when I get a bit of time. > > If it helps, I will post the subsequent version breaking this patch > into smaller ones. If you could without too much trouble, that would be a good help. Thanks, Nick