Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
To:     Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
Cc:     Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <Lorenzo.Pieralisi@arm.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Raju P . L . S . S . S . N" <rplsssn@codeaurora.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>,
        Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@kernel.org>,
        Lina Iyer <ilina@codeaurora.org>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 01/27] PM / Domains: Add generic data pointer to genpd_power_state struct
Date:   Fri, 11 Jan 2019 11:52:52 +0100
Message-ID: <5682777.oKQsr9mDaT@aspire.rjw.lan>
In-Reply-To: <CAPDyKFp=z0TS5oDD7muRCSuqqJ5sj-vOUyTf9tUJfXgWyE64Mg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20181129174700.16585-1-ulf.hansson@linaro.org> <81caa4b6-d0ac-f351-2ecf-47fb0f7dcc74@linaro.org> <CAPDyKFp=z0TS5oDD7muRCSuqqJ5sj-vOUyTf9tUJfXgWyE64Mg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 12:53:28 PM CET Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 at 11:39, Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > On 29/11/2018 18:46, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > > Let's add a data pointer to the genpd_power_state struct, to allow a genpd
> > > backend driver to store per state specific data. In order to introduce the
> > > pointer, we also need to adopt how genpd frees the allocated data for the
> > > default genpd_power_state struct, that it may allocate at pm_genpd_init().
> > >
> > > More precisely, let's use an internal genpd flag to understand when the
> > > states needs to be freed by genpd. When freeing the states data in
> > > genpd_remove(), let's also clear the corresponding genpd->states pointer
> > > and reset the genpd->state_count. In this way, a genpd backend driver
> > > becomes aware of when there is state specific data for it to free.
> > >
> > > Cc: Lina Iyer <ilina@codeaurora.org>
> > > Co-developed-by: Lina Iyer <lina.iyer@linaro.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
> > > ---
> > >
> > > Changes in v10:
> > >       - Update the patch allow backend drivers to free the states specific
> > >         data during genpd removal. Due to this added complexity, I decided to
> > >         keep the patch separate, rather than fold it into the patch that makes
> > >         use of the new void pointer, which was suggested by Rafael.
> > >       - Claim authorship of the patch as lots of changes has been done since
> > >         the original pick up from Lina Iyer.
> > >
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/base/power/domain.c | 8 ++++++--
> > >  include/linux/pm_domain.h   | 3 ++-
> > >  2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/base/power/domain.c b/drivers/base/power/domain.c
> > > index 7f38a92b444a..e27b91d36a2a 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/base/power/domain.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/base/power/domain.c
> > > @@ -1620,7 +1620,7 @@ static int genpd_set_default_power_state(struct generic_pm_domain *genpd)
> > >
> > >       genpd->states = state;
> > >       genpd->state_count = 1;
> > > -     genpd->free = state;
> > > +     genpd->free_state = true;
> > >
> > >       return 0;
> > >  }
> > > @@ -1736,7 +1736,11 @@ static int genpd_remove(struct generic_pm_domain *genpd)
> > >       list_del(&genpd->gpd_list_node);
> > >       genpd_unlock(genpd);
> > >       cancel_work_sync(&genpd->power_off_work);
> > > -     kfree(genpd->free);
> > > +     if (genpd->free_state) {
> > > +             kfree(genpd->states);
> > > +             genpd->states = NULL;
> > > +             genpd->state_count = 0;
> >
> > Why these two initializations? After genpd_remove, this structure
> > shouldn't be used anymore, no ?
> 
> Correct.
> 
> >
> > > +     }
> >
> > Instead of a flag, replacing the 'free' pointer to a 'free' callback
> > will allow to keep the free path self-encapsulated in domain.c
> >
> > genpd->free(genpd->states);
> 
> Right, I get your idea and it makes sense. Let me convert to that.

OK, so I'm expecting an update here.