Re: [PATCH v9 04/10] drivers: qcom: rpmh: add RPMH helper functions

[Raju P L S S S N]

Hi,

On 5/31/2018 3:19 AM, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 3:45 AM, Raju P L S S S N
> <rplsssn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > --- a/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmh-rsc.c
> > +++ b/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmh-rsc.c
> > @@ -61,6 +61,8 @@
> >   #define CMD_STATUS_ISSUED              BIT(8)
> >   #define CMD_STATUS_COMPL               BIT(16)
> >
> > +LIST_HEAD(rsc_drv_list);
>
> I still see no point of rsc_drv_list.  Please remove it, AKA squash in
> <http://crosreview.com/1042883>.

Agree.


> I'm also still of the opinion that we should take something like
> <http://crosreview.com/1054646>, AKA "Get rid of the global array
> rpmh_rsc".


> > +/**
> > + * __rpmh_write: send the RPMH request
> > + *
> > + * @dev: The device making the request
> > + * @state: Active/Sleep request type
> > + * @rpm_msg: The data that needs to be sent (cmds).
> > + */
> > +static int __rpmh_write(const struct device *dev, enum rpmh_state state,
> > +                       struct rpmh_request *rpm_msg)
> > +{
> > +       struct rpmh_ctrlr *ctrlr = get_rpmh_ctrlr(dev);
> > +
> > +       if (IS_ERR(ctrlr))
> > +               return PTR_ERR(ctrlr);
> > +
> > +       rpm_msg->msg.state = state;
> > +
> > +       if (state != RPMH_ACTIVE_ONLY_STATE)
> > +               return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > +       WARN_ON(irqs_disabled());
> > +
> > +       return rpmh_rsc_send_data(ctrlr->drv, &rpm_msg->msg);
> > +}
>
> You went too far in the removal of EXPORT_SYMBOL I think.  This symbol
> needs to be exported because other code that could be compiled as a
> module might need to call into it.  To explain:
>
> * If two files that are always built-in to Linux need to call into
> each other: no need for EXPORT_SYMBOL.
>
> * If two files that are always part of the same module need to call
> into each other: no need for EXPORT_SYMBOL.
>
> * If one file that might be built-into a module needs to call another
> that's builtin to the kernel: need EXPORT_SYMBOL.

Thanks for the explanation Doug. Will address this.

Thanks,
Raju