| Message ID | 1397212815-16068-19-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Commit | 277f50464d8b2e68a05cfcac765a0e54fd382d1f |
| Headers | show |
On Friday 11 April 2014, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > No more dependency on the arch code. The platform_data field is used to set the > PM callback as the other cpuidle drivers. > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> > Reviewed-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> > Reviewed-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com> This has just shown up in linux-next and broken randconfig builds. > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c > index fe8dac8..d22f0e4 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c > @@ -221,8 +221,9 @@ void exynos_restart(enum reboot_mode mode, const char *cmd) > } > > static struct platform_device exynos_cpuidle = { > - .name = "exynos_cpuidle", > - .id = -1, > + .name = "exynos_cpuidle", > + .dev.platform_data = exynos_enter_aftr, > + .id = -1, > }; > This is wrong on many levels, can we please do this properly? * The exynos_enter_aftr function is compiled conditionally, so you can't just reference it from generic code, or you get a link error. * 'static struct platform_device ...' has been deprecated for at least a decade, stop doing that. For any platform devices that get registered, there is platform_device_register_simple(). * There shouldn't need to be a platform_device to start with, this should all come from DT. We can't do this on arm64 anyway, so any code that may be shared between arm32 and arm64 should have proper abstractions. Daniel, you should really know better than this. Why are you still adding code to drivers/cpuidle that uses legacy platform devices rather than DT probing? Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Hi Arnd, On 09.05.2014 12:56, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Friday 11 April 2014, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> No more dependency on the arch code. The platform_data field is used to set the >> PM callback as the other cpuidle drivers. >> >> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> >> Reviewed-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> >> Reviewed-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com> > > This has just shown up in linux-next and broken randconfig builds. > >> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c >> index fe8dac8..d22f0e4 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c >> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c >> @@ -221,8 +221,9 @@ void exynos_restart(enum reboot_mode mode, const char *cmd) >> } >> >> static struct platform_device exynos_cpuidle = { >> - .name = "exynos_cpuidle", >> - .id = -1, >> + .name = "exynos_cpuidle", >> + .dev.platform_data = exynos_enter_aftr, >> + .id = -1, >> }; >> > > This is wrong on many levels, can we please do this properly? > > * The exynos_enter_aftr function is compiled conditionally, so you can't just > reference it from generic code, or you get a link error. +1 > * 'static struct platform_device ...' has been deprecated for at least a decade, > stop doing that. For any platform devices that get registered, there is > platform_device_register_simple(). +0.5 The missing 0.5 is because you can't pass platform data using platform_device_register_simple(). There is platform_device_register_resndata(), though. > * There shouldn't need to be a platform_device to start with, this should all > come from DT. We can't do this on arm64 anyway, so any code that may be > shared between arm32 and arm64 should have proper abstractions. -1 Exynos cpuidle is not a device on the SoC, so I don't think there is any way to represent it in DT. The only thing I could see this is matching root node with a central SoC driver that instantiates specific subdevices, such as cpufreq and cpuidle, but I don't see any available infrastructure for this. Best regards, Tomasz -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 05/09/14 19:56, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Friday 11 April 2014, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> No more dependency on the arch code. The platform_data field is used to set the >> PM callback as the other cpuidle drivers. >> >> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano<daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> >> Reviewed-by: Viresh Kumar<viresh.kumar@linaro.org> >> Reviewed-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz<b.zolnierkie@samsung.com> > > This has just shown up in linux-next and broken randconfig builds. > Hi Arnd, Hmm...I just reverted this series in for-next of samsung tree and will hold on until solving the randconfig build breakage. I need to look at this again and think about your suggestion... Thanks, Kukjin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 05/09/2014 02:02 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote: > Hi Arnd, > > On 09.05.2014 12:56, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> On Friday 11 April 2014, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >>> No more dependency on the arch code. The platform_data field is used to set the >>> PM callback as the other cpuidle drivers. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> >>> Reviewed-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> >>> Reviewed-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com> >> >> This has just shown up in linux-next and broken randconfig builds. >> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c >>> index fe8dac8..d22f0e4 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c >>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c >>> @@ -221,8 +221,9 @@ void exynos_restart(enum reboot_mode mode, const char *cmd) >>> } >>> >>> static struct platform_device exynos_cpuidle = { >>> - .name = "exynos_cpuidle", >>> - .id = -1, >>> + .name = "exynos_cpuidle", >>> + .dev.platform_data = exynos_enter_aftr, >>> + .id = -1, >>> }; >>> >> >> This is wrong on many levels, can we please do this properly? >> >> * The exynos_enter_aftr function is compiled conditionally, so you can't just >> reference it from generic code, or you get a link error. > > +1 That is true but still we have a link error without this patch. We shouldn't register and declare this structure if CONFIG_PM / CONFIG_CPU_IDLE are not set. >> * 'static struct platform_device ...' has been deprecated for at least a decade, >> stop doing that. For any platform devices that get registered, there is >> platform_device_register_simple(). > > +0.5 > > The missing 0.5 is because you can't pass platform data using > platform_device_register_simple(). There is > platform_device_register_resndata(), though. > >> * There shouldn't need to be a platform_device to start with, this should all >> come from DT. We can't do this on arm64 anyway, so any code that may be >> shared between arm32 and arm64 should have proper abstractions. > > -1 > > Exynos cpuidle is not a device on the SoC, so I don't think there is any > way to represent it in DT. The only thing I could see this is matching > root node with a central SoC driver that instantiates specific > subdevices, such as cpufreq and cpuidle, but I don't see any available > infrastructure for this. There is a RFC for defining generic idle states [1]. The idea behind using the platform driver framework is to unify the code across the different drivers and separate the PM / cpuidle code. By this way, we can move the different drivers to drivers/cpuidle and store them in a single place. That make easier the tracking, the review and the maintenance. I am ok to by using platform_device_register_resndata() but I would prefer to do that a bit later by converting the other drivers too. That will be easier if we have them grouped in a single directory (this is what does this patchset at the end). As there are some more work based on this patchset and the link error could be fixed as an independent patch, I would recommend to re-integrate it in the tree as asked by Bartlomiej. Thanks -- Daniel [1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg328747.html
Arnd, Kukjin, Daniel, On 12.05.2014 17:18, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > On 05/09/2014 02:02 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote: >> Hi Arnd, >> >> On 09.05.2014 12:56, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >>> On Friday 11 April 2014, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >>>> No more dependency on the arch code. The platform_data field is used to set the >>>> PM callback as the other cpuidle drivers. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> >>>> Reviewed-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> >>>> Reviewed-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com> >>> >>> This has just shown up in linux-next and broken randconfig builds. >>> >>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c >>>> index fe8dac8..d22f0e4 100644 >>>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c >>>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c >>>> @@ -221,8 +221,9 @@ void exynos_restart(enum reboot_mode mode, const char *cmd) >>>> } >>>> >>>> static struct platform_device exynos_cpuidle = { >>>> - .name = "exynos_cpuidle", >>>> - .id = -1, >>>> + .name = "exynos_cpuidle", >>>> + .dev.platform_data = exynos_enter_aftr, >>>> + .id = -1, >>>> }; >>>> >>> >>> This is wrong on many levels, can we please do this properly? >>> >>> * The exynos_enter_aftr function is compiled conditionally, so you can't just >>> reference it from generic code, or you get a link error. >> >> +1 > > That is true but still we have a link error without this patch. We > shouldn't register and declare this structure if CONFIG_PM / > CONFIG_CPU_IDLE are not set. > >>> * 'static struct platform_device ...' has been deprecated for at least a decade, >>> stop doing that. For any platform devices that get registered, there is >>> platform_device_register_simple(). >> >> +0.5 >> >> The missing 0.5 is because you can't pass platform data using >> platform_device_register_simple(). There is >> platform_device_register_resndata(), though. >> >>> * There shouldn't need to be a platform_device to start with, this should all >>> come from DT. We can't do this on arm64 anyway, so any code that may be >>> shared between arm32 and arm64 should have proper abstractions. >> >> -1 >> >> Exynos cpuidle is not a device on the SoC, so I don't think there is any >> way to represent it in DT. The only thing I could see this is matching >> root node with a central SoC driver that instantiates specific >> subdevices, such as cpufreq and cpuidle, but I don't see any available >> infrastructure for this. > > There is a RFC for defining generic idle states [1]. > > The idea behind using the platform driver framework is to unify the code > across the different drivers and separate the PM / cpuidle code. > > By this way, we can move the different drivers to drivers/cpuidle and > store them in a single place. That make easier the tracking, the review > and the maintenance. > > I am ok to by using platform_device_register_resndata() but I would > prefer to do that a bit later by converting the other drivers too. That > will be easier if we have them grouped in a single directory (this is > what does this patchset at the end). > > As there are some more work based on this patchset and the link error > could be fixed as an independent patch, I would recommend to > re-integrate it in the tree as asked by Bartlomiej. In general, it would be nice to have everything done properly, but I'd consider Daniel's series as a huge improvement already and a nice intermediate step towards further clean-up. So based on the comments quoted above, instead of stalling the development, I'd suggest to accept this series and then move forward. Best regards, Tomasz -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 05/15/14 23:07, Tomasz Figa wrote: > Arnd, Kukjin, Daniel, > > On 12.05.2014 17:18, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> On 05/09/2014 02:02 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote: >>> Hi Arnd, >>> >>> On 09.05.2014 12:56, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >>>> On Friday 11 April 2014, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >>>>> No more dependency on the arch code. The platform_data field is used to set the >>>>> PM callback as the other cpuidle drivers. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano<daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> >>>>> Reviewed-by: Viresh Kumar<viresh.kumar@linaro.org> >>>>> Reviewed-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz<b.zolnierkie@samsung.com> >>>> >>>> This has just shown up in linux-next and broken randconfig builds. >>>> >>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c >>>>> index fe8dac8..d22f0e4 100644 >>>>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c >>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c >>>>> @@ -221,8 +221,9 @@ void exynos_restart(enum reboot_mode mode, const char *cmd) >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> static struct platform_device exynos_cpuidle = { >>>>> - .name = "exynos_cpuidle", >>>>> - .id = -1, >>>>> + .name = "exynos_cpuidle", >>>>> + .dev.platform_data = exynos_enter_aftr, >>>>> + .id = -1, >>>>> }; >>>>> >>>> >>>> This is wrong on many levels, can we please do this properly? >>>> >>>> * The exynos_enter_aftr function is compiled conditionally, so you can't just >>>> reference it from generic code, or you get a link error. >>> >>> +1 >> >> That is true but still we have a link error without this patch. We >> shouldn't register and declare this structure if CONFIG_PM / >> CONFIG_CPU_IDLE are not set. >> >>>> * 'static struct platform_device ...' has been deprecated for at least a decade, >>>> stop doing that. For any platform devices that get registered, there is >>>> platform_device_register_simple(). >>> >>> +0.5 >>> >>> The missing 0.5 is because you can't pass platform data using >>> platform_device_register_simple(). There is >>> platform_device_register_resndata(), though. >>> >>>> * There shouldn't need to be a platform_device to start with, this should all >>>> come from DT. We can't do this on arm64 anyway, so any code that may be >>>> shared between arm32 and arm64 should have proper abstractions. >>> >>> -1 >>> >>> Exynos cpuidle is not a device on the SoC, so I don't think there is any >>> way to represent it in DT. The only thing I could see this is matching >>> root node with a central SoC driver that instantiates specific >>> subdevices, such as cpufreq and cpuidle, but I don't see any available >>> infrastructure for this. >> >> There is a RFC for defining generic idle states [1]. >> >> The idea behind using the platform driver framework is to unify the code >> across the different drivers and separate the PM / cpuidle code. >> >> By this way, we can move the different drivers to drivers/cpuidle and >> store them in a single place. That make easier the tracking, the review >> and the maintenance. >> >> I am ok to by using platform_device_register_resndata() but I would >> prefer to do that a bit later by converting the other drivers too. That >> will be easier if we have them grouped in a single directory (this is >> what does this patchset at the end). >> >> As there are some more work based on this patchset and the link error >> could be fixed as an independent patch, I would recommend to >> re-integrate it in the tree as asked by Bartlomiej. > > In general, it would be nice to have everything done properly, but I'd > consider Daniel's series as a huge improvement already and a nice > intermediate step towards further clean-up. > > So based on the comments quoted above, instead of stalling the > development, I'd suggest to accept this series and then move forward. > I'm fine. Arnd, how about you? - Kukjin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 05/15/2014 10:40 PM, Kukjin Kim wrote: [ ... ] >>>> Exynos cpuidle is not a device on the SoC, so I don't think there is >>>> any >>>> way to represent it in DT. The only thing I could see this is matching >>>> root node with a central SoC driver that instantiates specific >>>> subdevices, such as cpufreq and cpuidle, but I don't see any available >>>> infrastructure for this. >>> >>> There is a RFC for defining generic idle states [1]. >>> >>> The idea behind using the platform driver framework is to unify the code >>> across the different drivers and separate the PM / cpuidle code. >>> >>> By this way, we can move the different drivers to drivers/cpuidle and >>> store them in a single place. That make easier the tracking, the review >>> and the maintenance. >>> >>> I am ok to by using platform_device_register_resndata() but I would >>> prefer to do that a bit later by converting the other drivers too. That >>> will be easier if we have them grouped in a single directory (this is >>> what does this patchset at the end). >>> >>> As there are some more work based on this patchset and the link error >>> could be fixed as an independent patch, I would recommend to >>> re-integrate it in the tree as asked by Bartlomiej. >> >> In general, it would be nice to have everything done properly, but I'd >> consider Daniel's series as a huge improvement already and a nice >> intermediate step towards further clean-up. >> >> So based on the comments quoted above, instead of stalling the >> development, I'd suggest to accept this series and then move forward. >> > I'm fine. > > Arnd, how about you? > > - Kukjin Arnd ?
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c index 02609ac..1d1222e 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c @@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ #include <mach/map.h> -#include "common.h" +static void (*exynos_enter_aftr)(void); static int idle_finisher(unsigned long flags) { @@ -86,6 +86,8 @@ static int exynos_cpuidle_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) { int ret; + exynos_enter_aftr = (void *)(pdev->dev.platform_data); + ret = cpuidle_register(&exynos_idle_driver, NULL); if (ret) { dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to register cpuidle driver\n"); diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c index fe8dac8..d22f0e4 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c @@ -221,8 +221,9 @@ void exynos_restart(enum reboot_mode mode, const char *cmd) } static struct platform_device exynos_cpuidle = { - .name = "exynos_cpuidle", - .id = -1, + .name = "exynos_cpuidle", + .dev.platform_data = exynos_enter_aftr, + .id = -1, }; void __init exynos_cpuidle_init(void)