Re: [RESEND RFC PATCH v3] clk: Use new helper in managed functions
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman
Date: Thu Feb 20 2020 - 09:16:44 EST
On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 03:05:54PM +0100, Marc Gonzalez wrote:
> On 20/02/2020 12:27, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 11:04:58AM +0100, Marc Gonzalez wrote:
> >> Introduce devm_add() to wrap devres_alloc() / devres_add() calls.
> >> Using that helper produces simpler code, and smaller object size.
> >> E.g. with gcc-arm-9.2-2019.12-x86_64-aarch64-none-linux-gnu:
> >> text data bss dec hex filename
> >> - 1708 80 0 1788 6fc drivers/clk/clk-devres.o
> >> + 1524 80 0 1604 644 drivers/clk/clk-devres.o
> >> Signed-off-by: Marc Gonzalez <marc.w.gonzalez@xxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> Differences from v2 to v3
> >> x Make devm_add() return an error-code rather than the raw data pointer
> >> (in case devres_alloc ever returns an ERR_PTR) as suggested by Geert
> >> x Provide a variadic version devm_vadd() to work with structs as suggested
> >> by Geert
> >> x Don't use nested ifs in clk_devm* implementations (hopefully simpler
> >> code logic to follow) as suggested by Geert
> >> Questions:
> >> x This patch might need to be split in two? (Introduce the new API, then use it)
> >> x Convert other subsystems to show the value of this proposal?
> >> x Maybe comment the API usage somewhere
> >> ---
> >> drivers/base/devres.c | 15 ++++++
> >> drivers/clk/clk-devres.c | 99 ++++++++++++++--------------------------
> >> include/linux/device.h | 3 ++
> >> 3 files changed, 53 insertions(+), 64 deletions(-)
> >> diff --git a/drivers/base/devres.c b/drivers/base/devres.c
> >> index 0bbb328bd17f..b2603789755b 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/base/devres.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/base/devres.c
> >> @@ -685,6 +685,21 @@ int devres_release_group(struct device *dev, void *id)
> >> }
> >> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(devres_release_group);
> >> +int devm_add(struct device *dev, dr_release_t func, void *arg, size_t size)
> > Please add a bunch of kerneldoc here, as I have no idea what this
> > function does just by looking at the name of it :(
> Fair enough. (This was one of my "Questions" in the patch comments.)
> Note: My patch adds a new function, then makes use of said function.
> Is this typically done in two patches or one?
> Patch 1/2 augmenting the API.
> Patch 2/2 making use of the new function.
2 is usual.