[RFC v2 01/12] PM / Domains: Abstract genpd locking

[Stephen Boyd]

On 02/12, Lina Iyer wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/base/power/domain.c b/drivers/base/power/domain.c
> index 3ddd05d..8204615 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/power/domain.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/power/domain.c
> @@ -40,6 +40,46 @@
>  static LIST_HEAD(gpd_list);
>  static DEFINE_MUTEX(gpd_list_lock);
>  
> +struct genpd_lock_fns {
> +	void (*lock)(struct generic_pm_domain *genpd);
> +	void (*lock_nested)(struct generic_pm_domain *genpd, int depth);
> +	int (*lock_interruptible)(struct generic_pm_domain *genpd);
> +	void (*unlock)(struct generic_pm_domain *genpd);
> +};
> +
> +static void genpd_lock_irq(struct generic_pm_domain *genpd)
> +{
> +	mutex_lock(&genpd->mlock);
> +}
> +
> +static void genpd_lock_irq_nested(struct generic_pm_domain *genpd,
> +					int depth)
> +{
> +	mutex_lock_nested(&genpd->mlock, depth);
> +}
> +
> +static int genpd_lock_interruptible_irq(struct generic_pm_domain *genpd)
> +{
> +	return mutex_lock_interruptible(&genpd->mlock);
> +}
> +
> +static void genpd_unlock_irq(struct generic_pm_domain *genpd)
> +{
> +	return mutex_unlock(&genpd->mlock);
> +}
> +
> +static struct genpd_lock_fns irq_lock = {

Can this be const? Also, why is this called irq_lock when the
lock functions are mutex based?

> +	.lock = genpd_lock_irq,
> +	.lock_nested = genpd_lock_irq_nested,
> +	.lock_interruptible = genpd_lock_interruptible_irq,
> +	.unlock = genpd_unlock_irq,
> +};
> +
> @@ -74,6 +75,8 @@ struct generic_pm_domain {
>  	struct genpd_power_state *states;
>  	unsigned int state_count; /* number of states */
>  	unsigned int state_idx; /* state that genpd will go to when off */
> +	struct genpd_lock_fns *lock_fns;

const?

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project