[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPDyKFqY_mNnaT8j4vCXxYtARkGb_bkvcwKkyXcLPwW+gutO8Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2024 12:19:53 +0200
From: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: Viresh Kumar <vireshk@...nel.org>, Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>, Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
Nikunj Kela <nkela@...cinc.com>, Prasad Sodagudi <psodagud@...cinc.com>,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>, Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] OPP: Rework _set_required_devs() to manage a single
device per call
On Wed, 26 Jun 2024 at 08:33, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> On 19-06-24, 16:08, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > @@ -2494,36 +2495,68 @@ static int _opp_set_required_devs(struct opp_table *opp_table,
> > return -EINVAL;
> > }
> >
> > - /* Another device that shares the OPP table has set the required devs ? */
> > - if (opp_table->required_devs[0])
> > - return 0;
> > + /* Genpd core takes care of propagation to parent genpd */
> > + if (opp_table->is_genpd) {
>
> A genpd can have non-genpd devices in the required OPPs and so this
> isn't sufficient. What we were ignoring earlier was genpd having
> another genpd as required opp.
Unless I am mistaken, I don't think that is a scenario we should care
about here.
_opp_set_required_dev() is being called for a device that is about to
be attached to its corresponding genpd.
Yes, in some cases, we attach a genpd provider's device to its
genpd-parent, but that is not to control the required-opps.
>
> > + dev_err(dev, "%s: Operation not supported for genpds\n", __func__);
> > + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > + }
> >
> > for (i = 0; i < opp_table->required_opp_count; i++) {
> > - /* Genpd core takes care of propagation to parent genpd */
> > - if (required_devs[i] && opp_table->is_genpd &&
> > - opp_table->required_opp_tables[i]->is_genpd) {
> > - dev_err(dev, "%s: Operation not supported for genpds\n", __func__);
> > - return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > - }
> > + struct opp_table *table = opp_table->required_opp_tables[i];
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * The OPP table should be available at this point. If not, it's
> > + * not the one we are looking for.
> > + */
> > + if (IS_ERR(table))
> > + continue;
> > +
> > + /* Move to the next available index. */
> > + if (opp_table->required_devs[i])
> > + continue;
> >
> > - opp_table->required_devs[i] = required_devs[i];
> > + /*
> > + * We need to compare the nodes for the OPP tables, rather than
> > + * the OPP tables themselves, as we may have separate instances.
> > + */
> > + if (required_opp_table->np == table->np) {
> > +
>
> We don't keep such empty lines in OPP core generally at this place.
Yep, let me drop it!
>
> > + /* Cross check the OPP tables and fix it if needed. */
>
> Copy the bigger comment from_opp_attach_genpd() here too. It helps
> understanding why required_opp_tables entry is getting replaced.
Right, makes sense!
>
> > + if (required_opp_table != table) {
> > + dev_pm_opp_put_opp_table(table);
> > + _get_opp_table_kref(required_opp_table);
> > + opp_table->required_opp_tables[i] = required_opp_table;
> > + }
> > +
> > + opp_table->required_devs[i] = required_dev;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Add the required_dev as a user of the OPP table, so
> > + * we can call dev_pm_opp_set_opp() on it directly.
> > + */
> > + if (!_add_opp_dev(required_dev, required_opp_table)) {
> > + dev_err(dev, "Failed to add the device to the required OPP table\n");
> > + return -ENOMEM;
> > + }
> > +
> > + return i;
> > + }
> > }
>
> --
> viresh
Kind regards
Uffe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists