Hi, On Wed, Nov 07, 2018 at 06:23:40PM +0100, Alexandre Belloni wrote: > On 07/11/2018 14:54:17+0000, claudiu.bez...@microchip.com wrote: > > Hi Alexandre, > > > > On 06.11.2018 23:09, Alexandre Belloni wrote: > > > Hi Claudiu, > > > > > > On 05/11/2018 11:14:26+0000, claudiu.bez...@microchip.com wrote: > > >> static int __init at91_poweroff_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > >> @@ -154,16 +160,22 @@ static int __init at91_poweroff_probe(struct > > >> platform_device *pdev) > > >> u32 ddr_type; > > >> int ret; > > >> > > >> + at91_shdwc = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*at91_shdwc), > > >> GFP_KERNEL); > > >> + if (!at91_shdwc) > > >> + return -ENOMEM; > > >> + > > > > > > Is there any real benefit that will offset the time lost for that > > > allocation at boot time? > > > > No, I haven't run benchmarks on this. I only wanted to have them grouped in > > one structure. Please let me know if you have some tests in mind. > > > > Well, it is probably not much but small things adds up. Having it as a > global structure is probably good enough.
I suppose I will get a new patch with this change? -- Sebastian > > > > > > > I understand you are then testing at91_shdwc to know whether the driver > > > already probed once. But, the driver will never probe twice as there is > > > only one shutdown controller on the SoC and anyway, If it was to probe > > > twice, it will still work as expected. > > > > I had in mind the scenario where the driver would be compiled as module. I > > know insmod already does this checking. I'm ok to remove this checking. I > > will do it in next version. With this I will also remove devm_kzalloc() of > > at91_shdwc. > > > > Thanks, > > -- > Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin > Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering > https://bootlin.com
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
