[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKohpo=mcG99N5q_CCua8Hdydo=ydHKD-CiTJO9SsAhLvkTJHw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 10:40:27 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@...omium.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Lucas Stach <l.stach@...gutronix.de>,
Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...com>,
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@...e.com>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq-dt: defer probing if OPP table is not ready
On 16 December 2014 at 05:40, Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@...omium.org> wrote:
> cpufreq-dt driver supports mode when OPP table is provided by platform
> code and not device tree. However on certain platforms code that fills
> OPP table may run after cpufreq driver tries to initialize, so let's
> report -EPROBE_DEFER if we do not find any entires in OPP table for the
> CPU.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@...omium.org>
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt.c | 13 +++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt.c
> index f56147a..4f874fa 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt.c
> @@ -211,6 +211,19 @@ static int cpufreq_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> /* OPPs might be populated at runtime, don't check for error here */
> of_init_opp_table(cpu_dev);
>
> + /*
> + * But we need OPP table to function so if it is not there let's
> + * give platform code chance to provide it for us.
> + */
> + rcu_read_lock();
> + ret = dev_pm_opp_get_opp_count(cpu_dev);
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> + if (ret <= 0) {
> + pr_debug("OPP table is not ready, deferring probe\n");
> + ret = -EPROBE_DEFER;
> + goto out_free_opp;
Hmm, so we are trying to free opps while we failed to find one.
Are you sure you have tested this on one such platform where we
fail here?
Because this is what I see:
void of_free_opp_table(struct device *dev)
{
struct device_opp *dev_opp;
struct dev_pm_opp *opp, *tmp;
/* Check for existing list for 'dev' */
dev_opp = find_device_opp(dev);
if (WARN(IS_ERR(dev_opp), "%s: dev_opp: %ld\n", dev_name(dev),
PTR_ERR(dev_opp)))
return;
...
}
And we probably will hit this WARN(), wouldn't we ?
> + }
> +
> priv = kzalloc(sizeof(*priv), GFP_KERNEL);
> if (!priv) {
> ret = -ENOMEM;
> --
> 2.2.0.rc0.207.ga3a616c
>
>
> --
> Dmitry
--
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