From: "Dixit, Ashutosh" <ashutosh.dixit@intel.com>
To: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Badal Nilawar <badal.nilawar@intel.com>,
linux-hwmon@vger.kernel.org, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org,
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/7] drm/i915/hwmon: Add HWMON infrastructure
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2022 20:10:26 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87sfkh8o2l.wl-ashutosh.dixit@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YysHM8Ot1escBzEy@ashyti-mobl2.lan>
On Wed, 21 Sep 2022 05:44:35 -0700, Andi Shyti wrote:
>
> > +void i915_hwmon_register(struct drm_i915_private *i915)
> > +{
> > + struct device *dev = i915->drm.dev;
> > + struct i915_hwmon *hwmon;
> > + struct device *hwmon_dev;
> > + struct hwm_drvdata *ddat;
> > +
> > + /* hwmon is available only for dGfx */
> > + if (!IS_DGFX(i915))
> > + return;
> > +
> > + hwmon = kzalloc(sizeof(*hwmon), GFP_KERNEL);
>
> why don't we use devm_kzalloc?
>
> > + if (!hwmon)
> > + return;
> > +
> > + i915->hwmon = hwmon;
> > + mutex_init(&hwmon->hwmon_lock);
> > + ddat = &hwmon->ddat;
> > +
> > + ddat->hwmon = hwmon;
> > + ddat->uncore = &i915->uncore;
> > + snprintf(ddat->name, sizeof(ddat->name), "i915");
> > +
> > + hwm_get_preregistration_info(i915);
> > +
> > + /* hwmon_dev points to device hwmon<i> */
> > + hwmon_dev = hwmon_device_register_with_info(dev, ddat->name,
> > + ddat,
> > + &hwm_chip_info,
> > + NULL);
> > + if (IS_ERR(hwmon_dev)) {
> > + mutex_destroy(&hwmon->hwmon_lock);
>
> there is not such a big need to destroy the mutex. Destroying
> mutexes is more useful when you actually are creating/destroying
> and there is some debug need. I don't think that's the case.
>
> With the devm_kzalloc this would be just a return.
If we are using devm_kzalloc we might as well replace all the
hwmon_device_register_with_info's (in Patch 1 and 7) with
devm_hwmon_device_register_with_info and then i915_hwmon_unregister is just
this:
void i915_hwmon_unregister(struct drm_i915_private *i915)
{
fetch_and_zero(&i915->hwmon);
}
Even the above statement is probably not needed but might as well retain it
for sanity. So this is a simple change.
Thanks.
--
Ashutosh
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Dixit, Ashutosh" <ashutosh.dixit@intel.com>
To: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@linux.intel.com>
Cc: linux-hwmon@vger.kernel.org, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org,
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
Badal Nilawar <badal.nilawar@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/7] drm/i915/hwmon: Add HWMON infrastructure
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2022 20:10:26 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87sfkh8o2l.wl-ashutosh.dixit@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YysHM8Ot1escBzEy@ashyti-mobl2.lan>
On Wed, 21 Sep 2022 05:44:35 -0700, Andi Shyti wrote:
>
> > +void i915_hwmon_register(struct drm_i915_private *i915)
> > +{
> > + struct device *dev = i915->drm.dev;
> > + struct i915_hwmon *hwmon;
> > + struct device *hwmon_dev;
> > + struct hwm_drvdata *ddat;
> > +
> > + /* hwmon is available only for dGfx */
> > + if (!IS_DGFX(i915))
> > + return;
> > +
> > + hwmon = kzalloc(sizeof(*hwmon), GFP_KERNEL);
>
> why don't we use devm_kzalloc?
>
> > + if (!hwmon)
> > + return;
> > +
> > + i915->hwmon = hwmon;
> > + mutex_init(&hwmon->hwmon_lock);
> > + ddat = &hwmon->ddat;
> > +
> > + ddat->hwmon = hwmon;
> > + ddat->uncore = &i915->uncore;
> > + snprintf(ddat->name, sizeof(ddat->name), "i915");
> > +
> > + hwm_get_preregistration_info(i915);
> > +
> > + /* hwmon_dev points to device hwmon<i> */
> > + hwmon_dev = hwmon_device_register_with_info(dev, ddat->name,
> > + ddat,
> > + &hwm_chip_info,
> > + NULL);
> > + if (IS_ERR(hwmon_dev)) {
> > + mutex_destroy(&hwmon->hwmon_lock);
>
> there is not such a big need to destroy the mutex. Destroying
> mutexes is more useful when you actually are creating/destroying
> and there is some debug need. I don't think that's the case.
>
> With the devm_kzalloc this would be just a return.
If we are using devm_kzalloc we might as well replace all the
hwmon_device_register_with_info's (in Patch 1 and 7) with
devm_hwmon_device_register_with_info and then i915_hwmon_unregister is just
this:
void i915_hwmon_unregister(struct drm_i915_private *i915)
{
fetch_and_zero(&i915->hwmon);
}
Even the above statement is probably not needed but might as well retain it
for sanity. So this is a simple change.
Thanks.
--
Ashutosh
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Dixit, Ashutosh" <ashutosh.dixit@intel.com>
To: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@linux.intel.com>
Cc: linux-hwmon@vger.kernel.org, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org,
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/7] drm/i915/hwmon: Add HWMON infrastructure
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2022 20:10:26 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87sfkh8o2l.wl-ashutosh.dixit@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YysHM8Ot1escBzEy@ashyti-mobl2.lan>
On Wed, 21 Sep 2022 05:44:35 -0700, Andi Shyti wrote:
>
> > +void i915_hwmon_register(struct drm_i915_private *i915)
> > +{
> > + struct device *dev = i915->drm.dev;
> > + struct i915_hwmon *hwmon;
> > + struct device *hwmon_dev;
> > + struct hwm_drvdata *ddat;
> > +
> > + /* hwmon is available only for dGfx */
> > + if (!IS_DGFX(i915))
> > + return;
> > +
> > + hwmon = kzalloc(sizeof(*hwmon), GFP_KERNEL);
>
> why don't we use devm_kzalloc?
>
> > + if (!hwmon)
> > + return;
> > +
> > + i915->hwmon = hwmon;
> > + mutex_init(&hwmon->hwmon_lock);
> > + ddat = &hwmon->ddat;
> > +
> > + ddat->hwmon = hwmon;
> > + ddat->uncore = &i915->uncore;
> > + snprintf(ddat->name, sizeof(ddat->name), "i915");
> > +
> > + hwm_get_preregistration_info(i915);
> > +
> > + /* hwmon_dev points to device hwmon<i> */
> > + hwmon_dev = hwmon_device_register_with_info(dev, ddat->name,
> > + ddat,
> > + &hwm_chip_info,
> > + NULL);
> > + if (IS_ERR(hwmon_dev)) {
> > + mutex_destroy(&hwmon->hwmon_lock);
>
> there is not such a big need to destroy the mutex. Destroying
> mutexes is more useful when you actually are creating/destroying
> and there is some debug need. I don't think that's the case.
>
> With the devm_kzalloc this would be just a return.
If we are using devm_kzalloc we might as well replace all the
hwmon_device_register_with_info's (in Patch 1 and 7) with
devm_hwmon_device_register_with_info and then i915_hwmon_unregister is just
this:
void i915_hwmon_unregister(struct drm_i915_private *i915)
{
fetch_and_zero(&i915->hwmon);
}
Even the above statement is probably not needed but might as well retain it
for sanity. So this is a simple change.
Thanks.
--
Ashutosh
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-09-24 3:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 127+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-09-16 15:00 [PATCH 0/7] drm/i915: Add HWMON support Badal Nilawar
2022-09-16 15:00 ` [Intel-gfx] " Badal Nilawar
2022-09-16 15:00 ` Badal Nilawar
2022-09-16 15:00 ` [PATCH 1/7] drm/i915/hwmon: Add HWMON infrastructure Badal Nilawar
2022-09-16 15:00 ` [Intel-gfx] " Badal Nilawar
2022-09-16 15:00 ` Badal Nilawar
2022-09-21 10:59 ` Gupta, Anshuman
2022-09-21 10:59 ` [Intel-gfx] " Gupta, Anshuman
2022-09-21 10:59 ` Gupta, Anshuman
2022-09-21 12:44 ` [Intel-gfx] " Andi Shyti
2022-09-21 12:44 ` Andi Shyti
2022-09-21 15:17 ` Nilawar, Badal
2022-09-21 15:17 ` Nilawar, Badal
2022-09-21 15:45 ` Andi Shyti
2022-09-21 15:45 ` Andi Shyti
2022-09-21 15:45 ` Andi Shyti
2022-09-24 3:10 ` Dixit, Ashutosh [this message]
2022-09-24 3:10 ` Dixit, Ashutosh
2022-09-24 3:10 ` Dixit, Ashutosh
2022-09-16 15:00 ` [PATCH 2/7] drm/i915/hwmon: Add HWMON current voltage support Badal Nilawar
2022-09-16 15:00 ` [Intel-gfx] " Badal Nilawar
2022-09-16 15:00 ` Badal Nilawar
2022-09-21 11:08 ` Gupta, Anshuman
2022-09-21 11:08 ` [Intel-gfx] " Gupta, Anshuman
2022-09-21 11:08 ` Gupta, Anshuman
2022-09-16 15:00 ` [PATCH 3/7] drm/i915/hwmon: Power PL1 limit and TDP setting Badal Nilawar
2022-09-16 15:00 ` [Intel-gfx] " Badal Nilawar
2022-09-16 15:00 ` Badal Nilawar
2022-09-16 18:29 ` [Intel-gfx] " kernel test robot
2022-09-21 0:02 ` Dixit, Ashutosh
2022-09-21 0:02 ` [Intel-gfx] " Dixit, Ashutosh
2022-09-21 0:02 ` Dixit, Ashutosh
2022-09-21 11:44 ` [Intel-gfx] " Tvrtko Ursulin
2022-09-21 11:45 ` Gupta, Anshuman
2022-09-21 11:45 ` Gupta, Anshuman
2022-09-21 11:45 ` [Intel-gfx] " Gupta, Anshuman
2022-09-21 14:53 ` Nilawar, Badal
2022-09-21 14:53 ` [Intel-gfx] " Nilawar, Badal
2022-09-21 14:53 ` Nilawar, Badal
2022-09-22 7:08 ` Gupta, Anshuman
2022-09-22 7:08 ` [Intel-gfx] " Gupta, Anshuman
2022-09-22 7:08 ` Gupta, Anshuman
2022-09-23 2:26 ` Dixit, Ashutosh
2022-09-23 2:26 ` [Intel-gfx] " Dixit, Ashutosh
2022-09-23 2:26 ` Dixit, Ashutosh
2022-09-16 15:00 ` [PATCH 4/7] drm/i915/hwmon: Show device level energy usage Badal Nilawar
2022-09-16 15:00 ` [Intel-gfx] " Badal Nilawar
2022-09-16 15:00 ` Badal Nilawar
2022-09-21 12:02 ` Gupta, Anshuman
2022-09-21 12:02 ` [Intel-gfx] " Gupta, Anshuman
2022-09-21 12:02 ` Gupta, Anshuman
2022-10-13 15:53 ` Dixit, Ashutosh
2022-10-13 15:53 ` [Intel-gfx] " Dixit, Ashutosh
2022-10-13 15:53 ` Dixit, Ashutosh
2022-09-16 15:00 ` [PATCH 5/7] drm/i915/hwmon: Expose card reactive critical power Badal Nilawar
2022-09-16 15:00 ` [Intel-gfx] " Badal Nilawar
2022-09-16 15:00 ` Badal Nilawar
2022-09-21 15:07 ` Gupta, Anshuman
2022-09-21 15:07 ` [Intel-gfx] " Gupta, Anshuman
2022-09-21 15:07 ` Gupta, Anshuman
2022-09-22 3:17 ` Dixit, Ashutosh
2022-09-22 3:17 ` Dixit, Ashutosh
2022-09-22 3:17 ` [Intel-gfx] " Dixit, Ashutosh
2022-09-22 5:24 ` Gupta, Anshuman
2022-09-22 5:24 ` Gupta, Anshuman
2022-09-22 5:24 ` Gupta, Anshuman
2022-09-16 15:00 ` [PATCH 6/7] drm/i915/hwmon: Expose power1_max_interval Badal Nilawar
2022-09-16 15:00 ` [Intel-gfx] " Badal Nilawar
2022-09-16 15:00 ` Badal Nilawar
2022-09-22 7:13 ` Gupta, Anshuman
2022-09-22 7:13 ` Gupta, Anshuman
2022-09-22 7:13 ` [Intel-gfx] " Gupta, Anshuman
2022-09-23 2:51 ` Dixit, Ashutosh
2022-09-23 2:51 ` [Intel-gfx] " Dixit, Ashutosh
2022-09-23 2:51 ` Dixit, Ashutosh
2022-09-23 4:23 ` Dixit, Ashutosh
2022-09-23 4:23 ` [Intel-gfx] " Dixit, Ashutosh
2022-09-23 4:23 ` Dixit, Ashutosh
2022-09-16 15:00 ` [PATCH 7/7] drm/i915/hwmon: Extend power/energy for XEHPSDV Badal Nilawar
2022-09-16 15:00 ` [Intel-gfx] " Badal Nilawar
2022-09-16 15:00 ` Badal Nilawar
2022-09-22 7:37 ` Gupta, Anshuman
2022-09-22 7:37 ` [Intel-gfx] " Gupta, Anshuman
2022-09-22 7:37 ` Gupta, Anshuman
2022-09-16 17:37 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.CHECKPATCH: warning for drm/i915: Add HWMON support (rev6) Patchwork
2022-09-16 17:37 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.SPARSE: " Patchwork
2022-09-16 17:59 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure " Patchwork
2022-09-19 10:45 ` Nilawar, Badal
2022-09-19 10:15 ` [PATCH 0/7] drm/i915: Add HWMON support Gupta, Anshuman
2022-09-19 10:15 ` [Intel-gfx] " Gupta, Anshuman
2022-09-19 10:15 ` Gupta, Anshuman
2022-09-19 12:13 ` Nilawar, Badal
2022-09-19 12:13 ` [Intel-gfx] " Nilawar, Badal
2022-09-19 12:13 ` Nilawar, Badal
2022-09-19 15:35 ` [Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for drm/i915: Add HWMON support (rev6) Patchwork
2022-09-19 17:13 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.IGT: failure " Patchwork
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2022-10-13 15:45 [PATCH 0/7] drm/i915: Add HWMON support Ashutosh Dixit
2022-10-13 15:45 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/7] drm/i915/hwmon: Add HWMON infrastructure Ashutosh Dixit
2022-09-27 5:50 [PATCH 0/7] drm/i915: Add HWMON support Badal Nilawar
2022-09-27 5:50 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/7] drm/i915/hwmon: Add HWMON infrastructure Badal Nilawar
2022-10-03 20:50 ` Andi Shyti
2022-10-03 20:50 ` Andi Shyti
2022-09-26 17:52 [PATCH 0/7] Add HWMON support Badal Nilawar
2022-09-26 17:52 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/7] drm/i915/hwmon: Add HWMON infrastructure Badal Nilawar
2022-09-23 19:56 [PATCH 0/7] drm/i915: Add HWMON support Badal Nilawar
2022-09-23 19:56 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/7] drm/i915/hwmon: Add HWMON infrastructure Badal Nilawar
2022-09-24 3:54 ` Dixit, Ashutosh
2022-08-25 13:21 [PATCH 0/7] drm/i915: Add HWMON support Badal Nilawar
2022-08-25 13:21 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/7] drm/i915/hwmon: Add HWMON infrastructure Badal Nilawar
2022-08-26 13:30 ` Guenter Roeck
2022-08-29 17:26 ` Dixit, Ashutosh
2022-08-18 19:38 [PATCH 0/7] drm/i915: Add HWMON support Badal Nilawar
2022-08-18 19:38 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/7] drm/i915/hwmon: Add HWMON infrastructure Badal Nilawar
2022-08-19 10:35 ` Jani Nikula
2022-08-19 11:41 ` Guenter Roeck
2022-08-19 11:41 ` Guenter Roeck
2022-08-23 8:42 ` Nilawar, Badal
2022-08-23 8:42 ` Nilawar, Badal
2022-08-23 9:46 ` Jani Nikula
2022-08-23 9:46 ` Jani Nikula
2022-08-23 12:19 ` Guenter Roeck
2022-08-23 12:19 ` Guenter Roeck
2022-08-23 13:35 ` Jani Nikula
2022-08-23 13:35 ` Jani Nikula
2022-08-23 14:28 ` Nilawar, Badal
2022-08-23 14:28 ` Nilawar, Badal
2022-08-23 14:41 ` Jani Nikula
2022-08-23 14:41 ` Jani Nikula
2022-08-25 7:27 ` Nilawar, Badal
2022-08-25 7:27 ` Nilawar, Badal
2022-08-19 10:37 ` Jani Nikula
2022-08-12 17:37 [PATCH 0/7] drm/i915: Add HWMON support Badal Nilawar
2022-08-12 17:37 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/7] drm/i915/hwmon: Add HWMON infrastructure Badal Nilawar
2022-08-12 18:05 ` Guenter Roeck
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87sfkh8o2l.wl-ashutosh.dixit@intel.com \
--to=ashutosh.dixit@intel.com \
--cc=andi.shyti@linux.intel.com \
--cc=badal.nilawar@intel.com \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=linux-hwmon@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.