On 12/22, Viresh Kumar wrote:
@@ -230,6 +230,55 @@ unsigned long dev_pm_opp_get_max_clock_latency(struct device *dev) EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(dev_pm_opp_get_max_clock_latency); /**
- dev_pm_opp_get_max_volt_latency() - Get max voltage latency in nanoseconds
- @dev: device for which we do this operation
Weird tab again.
- Return: This function returns the max voltage latency in nanoseconds.
- Locking: This function takes rcu_read_lock().
- */
+unsigned long dev_pm_opp_get_max_volt_latency(struct device *dev) +{
- struct device_opp *dev_opp;
- struct dev_pm_opp *opp;
- struct regulator *reg;
- unsigned long latency_ns = 0;
- unsigned long min_uV = ~0, max_uV = 0;
- int ret;
- rcu_read_lock();
- dev_opp = _find_device_opp(dev);
- if (IS_ERR(dev_opp))
goto unlock;
- reg = dev_opp->regulator;
- /* Regulator may not be available for device */
- if (IS_ERR(reg))
goto unlock;
- list_for_each_entry_rcu(opp, &dev_opp->opp_list, node) {
if (!opp->available)
continue;
if (opp->u_volt_min < min_uV)
min_uV = opp->u_volt_min;
if (opp->u_volt_max > max_uV)
max_uV = opp->u_volt_max;
- }
- ret = regulator_set_voltage_time(reg, min_uV, max_uV);
Doesn't rcu_read_lock() disable preemption sometimes? I don't think we can call regulator ops with preemption disabled because regulators use mutex locking. It looks like regulator_list_voltage() may take a mutex anyway.
- if (ret > 0)
latency_ns += ret * 1000;
Why add to 0? Perhaps this should just be an assignment?
+unlock:
- rcu_read_unlock();
- return latency_ns;
+} +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(dev_pm_opp_get_max_volt_latency);