[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGETcx_b96teeKoYpJoi8=jhMVrNCKCw9Ef10AU8=mVXGXVPHg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 20:58:34 -0700
From: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: MyungJoo Ham <myungjoo.ham@...sung.com>,
Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>,
Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>,
Viresh Kumar <vireshk@...nel.org>, Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Sibi Sankar <sibis@...eaurora.org>,
Android Kernel Team <kernel-team@...roid.com>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] PM / devfreq: Add required OPPs support to passive governor
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 8:01 PM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> On 23-07-19, 17:26, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 3:04 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
> > > On 17-07-19, 15:23, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> > > > /*
> > > > @@ -56,13 +56,20 @@ static int devfreq_passive_get_target_freq(struct devfreq *devfreq,
> > > > * list of parent device. Because in this case, *freq is temporary
> > > > * value which is decided by ondemand governor.
> > > > */
> > > > - opp = devfreq_recommended_opp(parent_devfreq->dev.parent, freq, 0);
> > > > - if (IS_ERR(opp)) {
> > > > - ret = PTR_ERR(opp);
> > > > + p_opp = devfreq_recommended_opp(parent_devfreq->dev.parent, freq, 0);
> > > > + if (IS_ERR(p_opp)) {
> > > > + ret = PTR_ERR(p_opp);
> > > > goto out;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > - dev_pm_opp_put(opp);
> > > > + if (devfreq->opp_table && parent_devfreq->opp_table)
> > > > + opp = dev_pm_opp_xlate_opp(parent_devfreq->opp_table,
> > > > + devfreq->opp_table, p_opp);
> > >
> > > you put p_opp right here.
>
> What about this comment ?
Sorry, mixed this up with the other comment. Good point. Fixed. This
unintentionally fixed a copy-pasta bug I had in the "out" path.
-Saravana
>
> > >
> > > Also shouldn't you try to get p_opp under the above if block only? As
> > > that is the only user of it ?
> >
> > No, p_opp (used to be called opp) was used even before my changes. If
> > there's no required-opps mapping this falls back to assuming the slave
> > device OPP to pick should be the same index as the master device's
> > opp.
> >
> > So I believe this patch is correct as-is.
>
> Right.
>
> --
> viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists