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/
