On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 at 13:50, Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 10:26 PM Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 at 06:27, Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > When there is a single power domain per device, the core will
> > > ensure the power domain is switched on (so it is technically
> > > equivalent to having not power domain specified at all).
> > >
> > > However, when there are multiple domains, as in MT8183 Bifrost
> > > GPU, we need to handle them in driver code.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Besides a minor nitpick, feel free to add:
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Kind regards
> > Uffe
> >
> > [snip]
> > > +static int panfrost_pm_domain_init(struct panfrost_device *pfdev)
> > > +{
> > > + int err;
> > > + int i, num_domains;
> > > +
> > > + num_domains = of_count_phandle_with_args(pfdev->dev->of_node,
> > > + "power-domains",
> > > + "#power-domain-cells");
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > + * Single domain is handled by the core, and, if only a single power
> > > + * the power domain is requested, the property is optional.
> > > + */
> > > + if (num_domains < 2 && pfdev->comp->num_pm_domains < 2)
> > > + return 0;
> > > +
> > > + if (num_domains != pfdev->comp->num_pm_domains) {
> > > + dev_err(pfdev->dev,
> > > + "Incorrect number of power domains: %d provided, %d needed\n",
> > > + num_domains, pfdev->comp->num_pm_domains);
> > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + if (WARN(num_domains > ARRAY_SIZE(pfdev->pm_domain_devs),
> > > + "Too many supplies in compatible structure.\n"))
> >
> > Nitpick:
> > Not sure this deserves a WARN. Perhaps a regular dev_err() is sufficient.
>
> Ah well I had a BUG_ON before so presumably this is already a little better ,-)
>
> You can only reach there if you set pfdev->comp->num_pm_domains >
> MAX_PM_DOMAINS in the currently matched struct panfrost_compatible
> (pfdev->comp->num_pm_domains == num_domains, and see below too), so
> the kernel code would actually be actually broken (not the device
> tree, nor anything that could be probed). So I'm wondering if the
> loudness of a WARN is better in this case? Arguable ,-)
I see. It's not a big a deal, so feel free to keep as is.
[...]
Kind regards
Uffe
