[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231004050427.e3aalotrtpvld6rk@vireshk-i7>
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2023 10:34:27 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
Cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@....com>,
Viresh Kumar <vireshk@...nel.org>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
Nikunj Kela <nkela@...cinc.com>,
Prasad Sodagudi <psodagud@...cinc.com>,
Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/9] OPP: Extend support for the opp-level beyond
required-opps
On 03-10-23, 14:36, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> Can you please explain further on this. Rafael has acked those
> patches, so it should be perfectly fine for you to pick them via your
> tree too. There is no need to defer them.
Ahh, then it is fine.
> > I will then push out a branch and you can
> > rebase your patches on top of it ? And then probably Sudeep or someone else can
> > apply everything ?
>
> Or are you suggesting to just take one of the patches from my series,
> and then I will re-base everything on top?
>
> Just trying to understand the way forward. :-)
Applied patches 1-6/9 and the fixed routine looks like this now:
+static int _set_opp_level(struct device *dev, struct opp_table *opp_table,
+ struct dev_pm_opp *opp)
+{
+ unsigned int level = 0;
+ int ret = 0;
+
+ if (opp) {
+ if (!opp->level)
+ return 0;
+
+ level = opp->level;
+ }
+
+ /* Request a new performance state through the device's PM domain. */
+ ret = dev_pm_domain_set_performance_state(dev, level);
+ if (ret)
+ dev_err(dev, "Failed to set performance state %u (%d)\n", level,
+ ret);
+
+ return ret;
+}
Does it look okay now ?
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists