[PATCH 2/3] pm: domains: factor out code to get the generic PM domain from a struct device

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Monday, March 23, 2015 03:17:40 PM Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 02:28:14PM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > On 20 March 2015 at 18:20, Russell King <rmk+kernel at arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> > > The PM domain code contains two methods to get the generic PM domain
> > > for a struct device.  One is dev_to_genpd() which is only safe when
> > > we know for certain that the device has a generic PM domain attached.
> > > The other is coded into genpd_dev_pm_detach() which ensures that the
> > > PM domain in the struct device is a generic PM domain (and so is safer).
> > >
> > > This commit factors out the safer version, documents it, and hides the
> > > unsafe dev_to_genpd().
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel at arm.linux.org.uk>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/base/power/domain.c | 46 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
> > >  include/linux/pm_domain.h   |  6 +++---
> > >  2 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/base/power/domain.c b/drivers/base/power/domain.c
> > > index b3fbc21da2dc..89d2eea7f561 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/base/power/domain.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/base/power/domain.c
> > > @@ -68,7 +68,36 @@ static struct generic_pm_domain *pm_genpd_lookup_name(const char *domain_name)
> > >         return genpd;
> > >  }
> > >
> > > -struct generic_pm_domain *dev_to_genpd(struct device *dev)
> > > +/*
> > > + * Get the generic PM domain for a particular struct device.
> > > + * This validates the struct device pointer, the PM domain pointer,
> > > + * and checks that the PM domain pointer is a real generic PM domain.
> > > + * Any failure results in NULL being returned.
> > > + */
> > > +struct generic_pm_domain *pm_genpd_lookup_dev(struct device *dev)
> > 
> > I wouldn't mind keeping also this function static, unless you foresee
> > users outside genpd?
> 
> _I_ have users of it outside at the moment.
> 
> Once the major churn in PM domains is over and I have no use for this
> externally, I'll consider making it static in my patch set - but all
> the time that doing so results in breakage for me...
> 
> Plus, you're asking me to do yet another 20+ minute re-spin of this
> patch set.  I'm going to refuse; I'm almost at the point of just not
> giving a damn on this stuff, it's wasting too much of my time.
> Especially as, yet again, you should have replied to the emails in the
> previous round suggesting this change.
> 
> Rafael, please merge these three as we previously agreed.  Thanks.

I said I would do that, didn't I?

I've applied this series plus https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/6056201/
and https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/6057441/ on top of that.

Please let me know if you need anything more from the core.


-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.