[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4C938EE2.1010307@ti.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 10:53:06 -0500
From: Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
CC: linux-arm <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Phil Carmody <ext-phil.2.carmody@...ia.com>,
linux-doc <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
"Chikkature Rajashekar, Madhusudhan" <madhu.cr@...com>,
"Aguirre, Sergio" <saaguirre@...com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-pm <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
Eduardo Valentin <eduardo.valentin@...ia.com>,
linux-omap <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
"Gopinath, Thara" <thara@...com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...ricsson.com>,
"Granados Dorado, Roberto" <x0095451@...com>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
Romit Dasgupta <ro.mit@...com>,
Tero Kristo <Tero.Kristo@...ia.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Premi, Sanjeev" <premi@...com>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH] opp: introduce library for device-specific
OPPs
Mark Brown had written, on 09/17/2010 10:36 AM, the following:
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 08:29:33PM -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote:
>
>> +struct opp_def {
>> + unsigned long freq;
>> + unsigned long u_volt;
>> +
>> + bool enabled;
>> +};
>
> It might be clearer to use some term other than enabled in the code -
> when reading I wasn't immediately sure if enabled meant that it was
> available to be selected or if it was the active operating point. How
> about 'allowed' (though I'm not 100% happy with that)?
;).. The opp is enabled or disabled if it is populated, it is implicit
as being available but not enabled- how about active? this would change
the opp_enable/disable functions to opp_activate, opp_deactivate..
Recommendations folks?
>
>> +static inline int opp_add(struct device *dev, const struct opp_def *opp_def)
>> +{
>> + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>> +}
>
> Mismatch with the return type and value here.
/me kicks himself.. ouch.. thanks.. will fix in v2.
>
>> +/**
>> + * opp_enable() - Enable a specific OPP
>> + * @opp: Pointer to opp
>> + *
>> + * Enables a provided opp. If the operation is valid, this returns 0, else the
>> + * corresponding error value.
>> + *
>> + * OPP used here is from the the opp_is_valid/opp_has_freq or other search
>> + * functions
>> + */
>> +int opp_enable(struct opp *opp)
>> +{
>> + if (unlikely(!opp || IS_ERR(opp))) {
>> + pr_err("%s: Invalid parameters being passed\n", __func__);
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (!opp->enabled && opp->dev_opp)
>> + opp->dev_opp->enabled_opp_count++;
>> +
>> + opp->enabled = true;
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>
> When reading the description I'd expected to see some facility to
> trigger selection of an active operating point in the library (possibly
> as a separate call since you might have a bunch of operating points
> being updated in quick succession) but it looks like that needs to be
> supplied externally at the minute?
The intent is we use the opp_search* functions to pick up the opp and
enable/activate it and disable/deactivate it.
--
Regards,
Nishanth Menon
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists