On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 01:00:45PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> A SoC can be differently structured depending on the platform and the
> kernel can not be aware of all the combinations, as well as the
> specific tweaks for a particular board.
>
> The creation of the hierarchy must be delegated to userspace.
Isn't that what DT is for?
> These changes provide a registering mechanism where the different
> subsystems will initialize their dtpm backends and register with a
> name the dtpm node in a list.
>
> The next changes will provide an userspace interface to create
> hierarchically the different nodes. Those will be created by name and
> found via the list filled by the different subsystem.
>
> If a specified name is not found in the list, it is assumed to be a
> virtual node which will have children and the default is to allocate
> such node.
There's no userspace portion here, so why talk about it?
>
> Cc: Greg KH <gre...@linuxfoundation.org>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezc...@linaro.org>
> Reviewed-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.l...@arm.com>
> ---
>
> V5:
> - Decrease log level from 'info' to 'debug'
> - Remove the refcount, it is pointless, lifetime cycle is already
> handled by the device refcounting. The dtpm node allocator is in
> charge of freeing it.
> - Rename the functions to 'dtpm_add, dtpm_del, dtpm_lookup'
> - Fix missing kfrees when deleting the node from the list
> V4:
> - Fixed typo in the commit log
> V2:
> - Fixed error code path by dropping lock
> ---
> drivers/powercap/dtpm.c | 121 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> drivers/powercap/dtpm_cpu.c | 8 +--
> include/linux/dtpm.h | 6 ++
> 3 files changed, 127 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/powercap/dtpm.c b/drivers/powercap/dtpm.c
> index 58433b8ef9a1..8df7adeed0cf 100644
> --- a/drivers/powercap/dtpm.c
> +++ b/drivers/powercap/dtpm.c
> @@ -34,6 +34,14 @@ static DEFINE_MUTEX(dtpm_lock);
> static struct powercap_control_type *pct;
> static struct dtpm *root;
>
> +struct dtpm_node {
> + const char *name;
> + struct dtpm *dtpm;
> + struct list_head node;
> +};
> +
> +static LIST_HEAD(dtpm_list);
> +
> static int get_time_window_us(struct powercap_zone *pcz, int cid, u64
> *window)
> {
> return -ENOSYS;
> @@ -152,6 +160,113 @@ static int __dtpm_update_power(struct dtpm *dtpm)
> return ret;
> }
>
> +static struct dtpm *__dtpm_lookup(const char *name)
> +{
> + struct dtpm_node *node;
> +
> + list_for_each_entry(node, &dtpm_list, node) {
> + if (!strcmp(name, node->name))
> + return node->dtpm;
> + }
> +
> + return NULL;
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * dtpm_lookup - Lookup for a registered dtpm node given its name
> + * @name: the name of the dtpm device
> + *
> + * The function looks up in the list of the registered dtpm
> + * devices. This function must be called to create a dtpm node in the
> + * powercap hierarchy.
> + *
> + * Return: a pointer to a dtpm structure, NULL if not found.
> + */
> +struct dtpm *dtpm_lookup(const char *name)
> +{
> + struct dtpm *dtpm;
> +
> + mutex_lock(&dtpm_lock);
> + dtpm = __dtpm_lookup(name);
> + mutex_unlock(&dtpm_lock);
> +
> + return dtpm;
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * dtpm_add - Add the dtpm in the dtpm list
> + * @name: a name used as an identifier
> + * @dtpm: the dtpm node to be registered
> + *
> + * Stores the dtpm device in a list. The list contains all the devices
> + * which are power capable in terms of limitation and power
> + * consumption measurements. Even if conceptually, a power capable
> + * device won't register itself twice, the function will check if it
> + * was already registered in order to prevent a misuse of the API.
> + *
> + * Return: 0 on success, -EEXIST if the device name is already present
> + * in the list, -ENOMEM in case of memory allocation failure.
> + */
> +int dtpm_add(const char *name, struct dtpm *dtpm)
Why not just use the name of the dtpm?
Where does this "new" name come from? And why would it differ?
> +{
> + struct dtpm_node *node;
> + int ret;
> +
> + mutex_lock(&dtpm_lock);
> +
> + ret = -EEXIST;
> + if (__dtpm_lookup(name))
> + goto out_unlock;
Why do you have yet-another-list of these devices? They are already all
on a list, why do you need another?
And you seem to be ignoring reference count issues here, you add a
reference counted pointer to a random list in the kernel and never
increment the reference count. That's bad :(
So just don't use a new list please...
thanks,
greg k-h
