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

On Fri, Feb 26 2016 at 11:08 -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:

On 02/12, Lina Iyer wrote:

quoted

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?

hmm.. well IRQs are allowed, but I guess, I should come up with a better
name.

quoted

+	.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?

Sure will fix both.

Thanks,
Lina