Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-15866-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20231227-topic-rpm_vreg_cleanup-v1-1-949da0864ac5@linaro.org>
 <ae1c1cb6-00f9-41ce-afd1-d557fbf3034f@linaro.org> <8ef0364b-2649-4bef-81bf-30934afb1e38@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <8ef0364b-2649-4bef-81bf-30934afb1e38@linaro.org>
From: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2024 20:31:37 +0200
Message-ID: <CAA8EJpr_HR9vfsjr=NeWAc34FyfHAHXLJxxVPqfD=2KGzoppDg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] regulator: qcom_smd: Keep one rpm handle for all vregs
To: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>
Cc: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>, Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>, 
	Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>, Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@somainline.org>, 
	linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 at 12:03, Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On 27.12.2023 12:48, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > On 27/12/2023 03:29, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> >> For no apparent reason (as there's just one RPM per SoC), all vregs
> >> currently store a copy of a pointer to smd_rpm. Introduce a single,
> >> global one to save up on space in each definition.
> >>
> >> bloat-o-meter reports:
> >>
> >> Total: Before=43944, After=43924, chg -0.05%
> >>
> >> plus sizeof(ptr) on every dynamically allocated regulator :)
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>
> >> ---
>
> [...]
>
> >>   @@ -1440,11 +1438,10 @@ static int rpm_reg_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >>       const struct rpm_regulator_data *vreg_data;
> >>       struct device_node *node;
> >>       struct qcom_rpm_reg *vreg;
> >> -    struct qcom_smd_rpm *rpm;
> >>       int ret;
> >>   -    rpm = dev_get_drvdata(pdev->dev.parent);
> >> -    if (!rpm) {
> >> +    smd_vreg_rpm = dev_get_drvdata(pdev->dev.parent);
> >> +    if (!smd_vreg_rpm) {
> >
> > I thought about having a mutex around (I don't remember if secondary PMICs and/or chargers can be routed through RPM or not).
>
> A mutex for assigning this?

Yep.

>
> Konrad
> >
> > Then I went on checking other RPM and SMD-RPM drivers.
> >
> > clk-rpm: global variable, field
> > clk-smd-rpm: struct field
> > regulator_qcom-smd-rpm: struct field
> >
> > Probably it's worth using the same approach in all four drivers?
>
>


-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry