On Monday, October 31, 2016 11:47:03 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 05:22:13PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Let me quote from the previous intro messages for this series first: > > > > > > Time for another update. :-) > > > > > > > > Fewer changes this time, mostly to address issues found by Lukas and > > > > Marek. > > > > > > > > The most significant one is to make device_link_add() cope with the case > > > > when > > > > the consumer device has not been registered yet when it is called. The > > > > supplier device still is required to be registered and the function will > > > > return NULL if that is not the case. > > > > > > > > Another significant change is in patch [4/5] that now makes the core > > > > apply > > > > pm_runtime_get_sync()/pm_runtime_put() to supplier devices around the > > > > probing of a consumer one (in analogy with the parent). > > > > > > One more update after some conversations during LinuxCon Europe. > > > > > > The main point was to make it possible for device_link_add() to figure out > > > the initial state of the link instead of expecting the caller to provide > > > it > > > which might not be reliable enough in general. > > > > > > In this version device_link_add() takes three arguments, the supplier and > > > consumer pointers and flags and it sets the correct initial state of the > > > link automatically (unless invoked with the "stateless" flag, of course). > > > The cost is one additional field in struct device (I moved all of the > > > links-related fields in struct device to a separate sub-structure while at > > > it) to track the "driver presence status" of the device (to be used by > > > device_link_add()). > > > > > > In addition to that, the links list walks in the core.c and dd.c code are > > > under the device links mutex now, so the iternal link spinlock is not > > > needed > > > any more and I have renamed symbols to distinguish between flags, link > > > states and device "driver presence statuses". > > > > The most significant change in this revision with respect to the previous > > one is > > related to the fact that SRCU is not available on some architectures, so the > > code falls back to using an RW semaphore for synchronization if SRCU is not > > there. Fortunately, the code changes needed for that turned out to be quite > > straightforward and confined to the second patch. > > > > Apart from this, the flags are defined using BIT(x) now (instead of open > > coding > > the latter in the flag definitions). > > > > Updated is mostly patch [2/5]. Patches [1,3,5/5] have not changed (except > > for > > trivial rebasing) and patch [4/5] needed to be refreshed on top of the > > modified > > [2/5]. > > > > FWIW, I've run the series through 0-day which has not reported any problems > > with it. > > Great, they are now applied to my tree, thanks again for doing this > work.
Thanks!
