Re: [PATCH 01/11] PM: add a per-device wake-up latency constraints plist
From: Rafael J. Wysocki <hidden>
Date: 2011-07-02 19:38:47
Hi, On Thursday, June 30, 2011, jean.pihet@newoldbits.com wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
From: Jean Pihet <redacted> Add the field wakeup_lat_plist_head in the struct dev_pm_info and the initialization of the plist in device_pm_init. This enables the implementation of per-device constraints in PM QoS. Signed-off-by: Jean Pihet <redacted> --- drivers/base/power/main.c | 3 +++ include/linux/pm.h | 2 ++ 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)diff --git a/drivers/base/power/main.c b/drivers/base/power/main.c index aa632020..b1fd96b 100644 --- a/drivers/base/power/main.c +++ b/drivers/base/power/main.c@@ -96,6 +96,8 @@ void device_pm_add(struct device *dev) dev_name(dev->parent)); list_add_tail(&dev->power.entry, &dpm_list); mutex_unlock(&dpm_list_mtx); + /* ToDo: call PM QoS to init the per-device wakeup latency constraints */ + plist_head_init(&dev->power.wakeup_lat_plist_head, &dev->power.lock); } /**@@ -106,6 +108,7 @@ void device_pm_remove(struct device *dev) { pr_debug("PM: Removing info for %s:%s\n", dev->bus ? dev->bus->name : "No Bus", dev_name(dev)); + /* ToDo: call PM QoS to de-init the per-device wakeup latency constraints */ complete_all(&dev->power.completion); mutex_lock(&dpm_list_mtx); list_del_init(&dev->power.entry);diff --git a/include/linux/pm.h b/include/linux/pm.h index 3160648..35fe682 100644 --- a/include/linux/pm.h +++ b/include/linux/pm.h@@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ #define _LINUX_PM_H #include <linux/list.h> +#include <linux/plist.h> #include <linux/workqueue.h> #include <linux/spinlock.h> #include <linux/wait.h>@@ -462,6 +463,7 @@ struct dev_pm_info { unsigned long accounting_timestamp; void *subsys_data; /* Owned by the subsystem. */ #endif + struct plist_head wakeup_lat_plist_head; };
Please use a better name. I mean, relly, the type implies that this is a plist head, so that doesn't need to appear in the field name too. Also, the name is confusing, because "wakeup" may mean a couple of different things and it's not entirely clear what "lat" stands for. So, I'd prefer something like + struct plist_head latency_constraints; or perhaps you can invent something even better.
extern void update_pm_runtime_accounting(struct device *dev);
Thanks, Rafael