Re: [PATCH 1/2] gpio / ACPI: Avoid unnecessary checks in __gpiod_get_index()
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 11:08 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > From: Rafael J. Wysocki > > If dev is NULL in __gpiod_get_index() and both ACPI and OF are > enabled, it will be checked twice before the code decides to give > up with DT/ACPI lookup, so avoid that. > > Also use the observation that ACPI_COMPANION() is much more efficient > than ACPI_HANDLE(), because the latter uses the former and carries out > a check and a pointer dereference on top of it, so replace the > ACPI_HANDLE() check with an ACPI_COMPANION() one which does not > require the additional IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ACPI) check too. > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki Patch applied with review and ACK tags. Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 1/2] gpio / ACPI: Avoid unnecessary checks in __gpiod_get_index()
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 11:08 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@rjwysocki.net wrote: From: Rafael J. Wysocki rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com If dev is NULL in __gpiod_get_index() and both ACPI and OF are enabled, it will be checked twice before the code decides to give up with DT/ACPI lookup, so avoid that. Also use the observation that ACPI_COMPANION() is much more efficient than ACPI_HANDLE(), because the latter uses the former and carries out a check and a pointer dereference on top of it, so replace the ACPI_HANDLE() check with an ACPI_COMPANION() one which does not require the additional IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ACPI) check too. Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com Patch applied with review and ACK tags. Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 1/2] gpio / ACPI: Avoid unnecessary checks in __gpiod_get_index()
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 11:08:57PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > From: Rafael J. Wysocki > > If dev is NULL in __gpiod_get_index() and both ACPI and OF are > enabled, it will be checked twice before the code decides to give > up with DT/ACPI lookup, so avoid that. > > Also use the observation that ACPI_COMPANION() is much more efficient > than ACPI_HANDLE(), because the latter uses the former and carries out > a check and a pointer dereference on top of it, so replace the > ACPI_HANDLE() check with an ACPI_COMPANION() one which does not > require the additional IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ACPI) check too. > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki Acked-by: Mika Westerberg -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 1/2] gpio / ACPI: Avoid unnecessary checks in __gpiod_get_index()
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 11:08:57PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: From: Rafael J. Wysocki rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com If dev is NULL in __gpiod_get_index() and both ACPI and OF are enabled, it will be checked twice before the code decides to give up with DT/ACPI lookup, so avoid that. Also use the observation that ACPI_COMPANION() is much more efficient than ACPI_HANDLE(), because the latter uses the former and carries out a check and a pointer dereference on top of it, so replace the ACPI_HANDLE() check with an ACPI_COMPANION() one which does not require the additional IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ACPI) check too. Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com Acked-by: Mika Westerberg mika.westerb...@linux.intel.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 1/2] gpio / ACPI: Avoid unnecessary checks in __gpiod_get_index()
On 2015/3/11 6:08, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > From: Rafael J. Wysocki > > If dev is NULL in __gpiod_get_index() and both ACPI and OF are > enabled, it will be checked twice before the code decides to give > up with DT/ACPI lookup, so avoid that. > > Also use the observation that ACPI_COMPANION() is much more efficient > than ACPI_HANDLE(), because the latter uses the former and carries out > a check and a pointer dereference on top of it, so replace the > ACPI_HANDLE() check with an ACPI_COMPANION() one which does not > require the additional IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ACPI) check too. > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki Quite straight forward to me, for both two patches, Reviewed-by: Hanjun Guo Thanks Hanjun > --- > drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c | 16 +--- > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > Index: linux-pm/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c > === > --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c > +++ linux-pm/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c > @@ -1865,13 +1865,15 @@ struct gpio_desc *__must_check __gpiod_g > > dev_dbg(dev, "GPIO lookup for consumer %s\n", con_id); > > - /* Using device tree? */ > - if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF) && dev && dev->of_node) { > - dev_dbg(dev, "using device tree for GPIO lookup\n"); > - desc = of_find_gpio(dev, con_id, idx, ); > - } else if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ACPI) && dev && ACPI_HANDLE(dev)) { > - dev_dbg(dev, "using ACPI for GPIO lookup\n"); > - desc = acpi_find_gpio(dev, con_id, idx, ); > + if (dev) { > + /* Using device tree? */ > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF) && dev->of_node) { > + dev_dbg(dev, "using device tree for GPIO lookup\n"); > + desc = of_find_gpio(dev, con_id, idx, ); > + } else if (ACPI_COMPANION(dev)) { > + dev_dbg(dev, "using ACPI for GPIO lookup\n"); > + desc = acpi_find_gpio(dev, con_id, idx, ); > + } > } > > /* > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in > the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > . > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[PATCH 1/2] gpio / ACPI: Avoid unnecessary checks in __gpiod_get_index()
From: Rafael J. Wysocki If dev is NULL in __gpiod_get_index() and both ACPI and OF are enabled, it will be checked twice before the code decides to give up with DT/ACPI lookup, so avoid that. Also use the observation that ACPI_COMPANION() is much more efficient than ACPI_HANDLE(), because the latter uses the former and carries out a check and a pointer dereference on top of it, so replace the ACPI_HANDLE() check with an ACPI_COMPANION() one which does not require the additional IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ACPI) check too. Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki --- drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c | 16 +--- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) Index: linux-pm/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c === --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c +++ linux-pm/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c @@ -1865,13 +1865,15 @@ struct gpio_desc *__must_check __gpiod_g dev_dbg(dev, "GPIO lookup for consumer %s\n", con_id); - /* Using device tree? */ - if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF) && dev && dev->of_node) { - dev_dbg(dev, "using device tree for GPIO lookup\n"); - desc = of_find_gpio(dev, con_id, idx, ); - } else if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ACPI) && dev && ACPI_HANDLE(dev)) { - dev_dbg(dev, "using ACPI for GPIO lookup\n"); - desc = acpi_find_gpio(dev, con_id, idx, ); + if (dev) { + /* Using device tree? */ + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF) && dev->of_node) { + dev_dbg(dev, "using device tree for GPIO lookup\n"); + desc = of_find_gpio(dev, con_id, idx, ); + } else if (ACPI_COMPANION(dev)) { + dev_dbg(dev, "using ACPI for GPIO lookup\n"); + desc = acpi_find_gpio(dev, con_id, idx, ); + } } /* -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 1/2] gpio / ACPI: Avoid unnecessary checks in __gpiod_get_index()
On 2015/3/11 6:08, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: From: Rafael J. Wysocki rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com If dev is NULL in __gpiod_get_index() and both ACPI and OF are enabled, it will be checked twice before the code decides to give up with DT/ACPI lookup, so avoid that. Also use the observation that ACPI_COMPANION() is much more efficient than ACPI_HANDLE(), because the latter uses the former and carries out a check and a pointer dereference on top of it, so replace the ACPI_HANDLE() check with an ACPI_COMPANION() one which does not require the additional IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ACPI) check too. Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com Quite straight forward to me, for both two patches, Reviewed-by: Hanjun Guo hanjun@linaro.org Thanks Hanjun --- drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c | 16 +--- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) Index: linux-pm/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c === --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c +++ linux-pm/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c @@ -1865,13 +1865,15 @@ struct gpio_desc *__must_check __gpiod_g dev_dbg(dev, GPIO lookup for consumer %s\n, con_id); - /* Using device tree? */ - if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF) dev dev-of_node) { - dev_dbg(dev, using device tree for GPIO lookup\n); - desc = of_find_gpio(dev, con_id, idx, lookupflags); - } else if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ACPI) dev ACPI_HANDLE(dev)) { - dev_dbg(dev, using ACPI for GPIO lookup\n); - desc = acpi_find_gpio(dev, con_id, idx, lookupflags); + if (dev) { + /* Using device tree? */ + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF) dev-of_node) { + dev_dbg(dev, using device tree for GPIO lookup\n); + desc = of_find_gpio(dev, con_id, idx, lookupflags); + } else if (ACPI_COMPANION(dev)) { + dev_dbg(dev, using ACPI for GPIO lookup\n); + desc = acpi_find_gpio(dev, con_id, idx, lookupflags); + } } /* -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-acpi in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html . -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[PATCH 1/2] gpio / ACPI: Avoid unnecessary checks in __gpiod_get_index()
From: Rafael J. Wysocki rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com If dev is NULL in __gpiod_get_index() and both ACPI and OF are enabled, it will be checked twice before the code decides to give up with DT/ACPI lookup, so avoid that. Also use the observation that ACPI_COMPANION() is much more efficient than ACPI_HANDLE(), because the latter uses the former and carries out a check and a pointer dereference on top of it, so replace the ACPI_HANDLE() check with an ACPI_COMPANION() one which does not require the additional IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ACPI) check too. Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com --- drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c | 16 +--- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) Index: linux-pm/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c === --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c +++ linux-pm/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c @@ -1865,13 +1865,15 @@ struct gpio_desc *__must_check __gpiod_g dev_dbg(dev, GPIO lookup for consumer %s\n, con_id); - /* Using device tree? */ - if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF) dev dev-of_node) { - dev_dbg(dev, using device tree for GPIO lookup\n); - desc = of_find_gpio(dev, con_id, idx, lookupflags); - } else if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ACPI) dev ACPI_HANDLE(dev)) { - dev_dbg(dev, using ACPI for GPIO lookup\n); - desc = acpi_find_gpio(dev, con_id, idx, lookupflags); + if (dev) { + /* Using device tree? */ + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF) dev-of_node) { + dev_dbg(dev, using device tree for GPIO lookup\n); + desc = of_find_gpio(dev, con_id, idx, lookupflags); + } else if (ACPI_COMPANION(dev)) { + dev_dbg(dev, using ACPI for GPIO lookup\n); + desc = acpi_find_gpio(dev, con_id, idx, lookupflags); + } } /* -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/