lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jun]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH v3 2/2] drivers: mfd: vexpress: add Serial Power Controller (SPC) support
Hi Lorenzo,

I don't particularily like this code, but I guess most of my dislike
comes from the whole bridge interface API and how that forces you into
implementing pretty much static code.
A few nitpicks:

On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 10:59:23AM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/Kconfig b/drivers/mfd/Kconfig
> index d54e985..391eda1 100644
> --- a/drivers/mfd/Kconfig
> +++ b/drivers/mfd/Kconfig
> @@ -1148,3 +1148,10 @@ config VEXPRESS_CONFIG
> help
> Platform configuration infrastructure for the ARM Ltd.
> Versatile Express.
> +
> +config VEXPRESS_SPC
> + bool "Versatile Express SPC driver support"
> + depends on ARM
> + depends on VEXPRESS_CONFIG
> + help
Please provide a detailed help entry here.


> + Serial Power Controller driver for ARM Ltd. test chips.
> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/Makefile b/drivers/mfd/Makefile
> index 718e94a..3a01203 100644
> --- a/drivers/mfd/Makefile
> +++ b/drivers/mfd/Makefile
> @@ -153,5 +153,6 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_MFD_SEC_CORE) += sec-core.o sec-irq.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_MFD_SYSCON) += syscon.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_MFD_LM3533) += lm3533-core.o lm3533-ctrlbank.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_VEXPRESS_CONFIG) += vexpress-config.o vexpress-sysreg.o
> +obj-$(CONFIG_VEXPRESS_SPC) += vexpress-spc.o
So you have Versatile Express platforms that will not need SPC ? i.e.
why isn't all that stuff under a generic CONFIG_VEXPRESS symbol ?



> +static struct vexpress_spc_drvdata *info;
> +static u32 *vexpress_spc_config_data;
> +static struct vexpress_config_bridge *vexpress_spc_config_bridge;
> +static struct vexpress_config_func *opp_func, *perf_func;
> +
> +static int vexpress_spc_load_result = -EAGAIN;
As I said, quite static...

> +irqreturn_t vexpress_spc_irq_handler(int irq, void *data)
missing a static here ?


> +static bool __init __vexpress_spc_check_loaded(void);
> +/*
> + * Pointer spc_check_loaded is swapped after init hence it is safe
> + * to initialize it to a function in the __init section
> + */
> +static bool (*spc_check_loaded)(void) __refdata = &__vexpress_spc_check_loaded;
> +
> +static bool __init __vexpress_spc_check_loaded(void)
> +{
> + if (vexpress_spc_load_result == -EAGAIN)
> + vexpress_spc_load_result = vexpress_spc_init();
> + spc_check_loaded = &vexpress_spc_initialized;
> + return vexpress_spc_initialized();
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * Function exported to manage early_initcall ordering.
> + * SPC code is needed very early in the boot process
> + * to bring CPUs out of reset and initialize power
> + * management back-end. After boot swap pointers to
> + * make the functionality check available to loadable
> + * modules, when early boot init functions have been
> + * already freed from kernel address space.
> + */
> +bool vexpress_spc_check_loaded(void)
> +{
> + return spc_check_loaded();
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(vexpress_spc_check_loaded);
That one and the previous function look really nasty to me.
The simple fact that you need a static variable in your code to check if
your module is loaded sounds really fishy.

Cheers,
Samuel.

--
Intel Open Source Technology Centre
http://oss.intel.com/


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-06-13 02:21    [W:0.290 / U:0.128 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site