From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1758498AbcATWiT (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 20 Jan 2016 17:38:19 -0500
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:47103 "EHLO
	bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752516AbcATWiQ (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 20 Jan 2016 17:38:16 -0500
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 23:38:09 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        steve.muckle@linaro.org, Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 18/19] cpufreq: remove transition_lock
Message-ID: <20160120223809.GZ6357@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <1452533760-13787-19-git-send-email-juri.lelli@arm.com>
 <20160119191734.GB6357@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20160119192111.GC6373@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <10535878.57N9JsXUl5@vostro.rjw.lan>
 <20160120170448.GO6357@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAJZ5v0hB-HOLBggmih+ffZw=Rqpcdy9dMjh9AVfJKaQC-YHqxQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAJZ5v0hB-HOLBggmih+ffZw=Rqpcdy9dMjh9AVfJKaQC-YHqxQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 11:12:45PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > I would dangle _everything_ off the one driver pointer, that's much
> > easier.
> 
> I'm not sure how much easier it is in practice.
> 
> Even if everything dangles out of the driver pointer, data structures
> pointed to by those things need not be allocated all in one go by the
> same entity.  Some of them are allocated by drivers, some of them by
> the core, at different times.

Yes, I've noticed, some of that is really bonkers.

> The ordering between those allocations
> and populating the pointers is what matters, not how all that is laid
> out in memory.

I'm thinking getting that ordering right is easier/more natural, if its
all contained in one object. But this could be subjective.