Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
From:   Bernard Zhao <bernard@vivo.com>
To:     Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>, Kukjin Kim <kgene@kernel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>,
        linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     opensource.kernel@vivo.com, Bernard Zhao <bernard@vivo.com>
Subject: [PATCH] memory/samsung: reduce unnecessary mutex lock area
Date:   Fri,  8 May 2020 06:13:38 -0700
Message-Id: <20200508131338.32956-1-bernard@vivo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Maybe dmc->df->lock is unnecessary to protect function
exynos5_dmc_perf_events_check(dmc). If we have to protect,
dmc->lock is more better and more effective.
Also, it seems not needed to protect "if (ret) & dev_warn"
branch.

Signed-off-by: Bernard Zhao <bernard@vivo.com>
---
 drivers/memory/samsung/exynos5422-dmc.c | 6 ++----
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/memory/samsung/exynos5422-dmc.c b/drivers/memory/samsung/exynos5422-dmc.c
index 22a43d662833..88e8ac8b5327 100644
--- a/drivers/memory/samsung/exynos5422-dmc.c
+++ b/drivers/memory/samsung/exynos5422-dmc.c
@@ -1345,16 +1345,14 @@ static irqreturn_t dmc_irq_thread(int irq, void *priv)
 	int res;
 	struct exynos5_dmc *dmc = priv;
 
-	mutex_lock(&dmc->df->lock);
-
 	exynos5_dmc_perf_events_check(dmc);
 
+	mutex_lock(&dmc->df->lock);
 	res = update_devfreq(dmc->df);
+	mutex_unlock(&dmc->df->lock);
 	if (res)
 		dev_warn(dmc->dev, "devfreq failed with %d\n", res);
 
-	mutex_unlock(&dmc->df->lock);
-
 	return IRQ_HANDLED;
 }
 
-- 
2.26.2