On Sat, May 20, 2023 at 04:26:59AM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On 15/05/2023 06:02, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> > The dp_power module keeps track of both the DP controller's struct
> > platform_device and struct device - with the prior pulled out of the
> > dp_parser module.
> >
> > Clean up the duplication by dropping the platform_device reference and
> > just track the passed struct device.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Bjorn Andersson <quic_bjora...@quicinc.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_power.c | 16 +++++++---------
> > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_power.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_power.c
> > index 031d2eefef07..9be645f91211 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_power.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_power.c
> > @@ -14,7 +14,6 @@
> > struct dp_power_private {
> > struct dp_parser *parser;
> > - struct platform_device *pdev;
> > struct device *dev;
> > struct drm_device *drm_dev;
> > struct clk *link_clk_src;
> > @@ -28,7 +27,7 @@ static int dp_power_clk_init(struct dp_power_private
> > *power)
> > {
> > int rc = 0;
> > struct dss_module_power *core, *ctrl, *stream;
> > - struct device *dev = &power->pdev->dev;
> > + struct device *dev = power->dev;
> > core = &power->parser->mp[DP_CORE_PM];
> > ctrl = &power->parser->mp[DP_CTRL_PM];
> > @@ -153,7 +152,7 @@ int dp_power_client_init(struct dp_power *dp_power)
> > power = container_of(dp_power, struct dp_power_private, dp_power);
> > - pm_runtime_enable(&power->pdev->dev);
> > + pm_runtime_enable(power->dev);
> > return dp_power_clk_init(power);
> > }
> > @@ -164,7 +163,7 @@ void dp_power_client_deinit(struct dp_power *dp_power)
> > power = container_of(dp_power, struct dp_power_private, dp_power);
> > - pm_runtime_disable(&power->pdev->dev);
> > + pm_runtime_disable(power->dev);
> > }
> > int dp_power_init(struct dp_power *dp_power, bool flip)
> > @@ -174,11 +173,11 @@ int dp_power_init(struct dp_power *dp_power, bool
> > flip)
> > power = container_of(dp_power, struct dp_power_private, dp_power);
> > - pm_runtime_get_sync(&power->pdev->dev);
> > + pm_runtime_get_sync(power->dev);
> > rc = dp_power_clk_enable(dp_power, DP_CORE_PM, true);
> > if (rc)
> > - pm_runtime_put_sync(&power->pdev->dev);
> > + pm_runtime_put_sync(power->dev);
> > return rc;
> > }
> > @@ -190,7 +189,7 @@ int dp_power_deinit(struct dp_power *dp_power)
> > power = container_of(dp_power, struct dp_power_private, dp_power);
> > dp_power_clk_enable(dp_power, DP_CORE_PM, false);
> > - pm_runtime_put_sync(&power->pdev->dev);
> > + pm_runtime_put_sync(power->dev);
> > return 0;
> > }
> > @@ -199,12 +198,11 @@ struct dp_power *dp_power_get(struct device *dev,
> > struct dp_parser *parser)
>
> Technically we don't even need to pass struct device here, we can get it
> from parser->pdev->dev.
>
Right, but afaict dp_init_sub_modules() passes struct device * as first
parameter to all the "module" initializers. So it feels reasonable to
keep it, for now, for symmetry.
What do you think?
Regards,
Bjorn
> > struct dp_power_private *power;
> > struct dp_power *dp_power;
> > - power = devm_kzalloc(&parser->pdev->dev, sizeof(*power), GFP_KERNEL);
> > + power = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*power), GFP_KERNEL);
> > if (!power)
> > return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> > power->parser = parser;
> > - power->pdev = parser->pdev;
> > power->dev = dev;
> > dp_power = &power->dp_power;
>
> --
> With best wishes
> Dmitry
>
