Messages in this thread | | | From | Doug Anderson <> | Date | Fri, 10 Apr 2020 07:52:52 -0700 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v16 4/6] soc: qcom: rpmh: Invoke rpmh_flush() for dirty caches |
| |
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 9:15 PM Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org> wrote: > > > int rpmh_flush(struct rpmh_ctrlr *ctrlr) > > This function name keeps throwing me off. Can we please call it > something like rpmh_configure_tcs_sleep_wake()? The word "flush" seems > to imply there's some sort of cache going on, but that's not really the > case. We're programming a couple TCS FIFOs so that they can be used > across deep CPU sleep states.
I'm hoping this rename can be deferred until Maulik's series and my cleanup series land. While I agree that rpmh_flush() is a bit of a confusing name, it's not a new name and renaming it midway through when there are a bunch of patches in-flight is going to be a hassle.
Assuming others agree, my thought is that Maulik will do one more v17 spin with small nits fixed up, then his series can land early next week when (presumably) -rc1 comes out. If my current cleanup doesn't apply cleanly (or if Bjorn/Andy don't want to fix the two nits in commit messages when applying) I can repost my series and that can land in short order. Once those land:
* Maulik can post this rpmh_flush() rename atop.
* I can post the patch to remove the "pm_lock" that was introduced in this series. A preview at <https://crrev.com/c/2142823>.
* Maulik can post some of the cleanups that Maulik wanted to do in rpmh.c with regards to __fill_rpmh_msg()
...assuming those are not controversial perhaps they can be reviewed quickly and land quickly? I suppose I can always dream...
-Doug
| |