On 3.03.2023 12:40, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> On 03/03/2023 11:39, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 3.03.2023 12:36, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
>>> On 03/03/2023 11:35, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
>>>> On 03/03/2023 11:33, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 3.03.2023 12:32, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
>>>>>> On 03/03/2023 02:35, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>>>>>> Currently, when sync_state calls set(n, n) all the paths for setting
>>>>>>> parameters on an icc node are called twice. Avoid that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fixes: 751f4d14cdb4 ("interconnect: icc-rpm: Set destination bandwidth as well as source bandwidth")
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> RFC comes from the fact that I *believe* this should be correct, but I'm
>>>>>>> not entirely sure about it..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> drivers/interconnect/qcom/icc-rpm.c | 2 +-
>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/interconnect/qcom/icc-rpm.c b/drivers/interconnect/qcom/icc-rpm.c
>>>>>>> index a6e0de03f46b..d35db1af9b08 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/interconnect/qcom/icc-rpm.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/interconnect/qcom/icc-rpm.c
>>>>>>> @@ -387,7 +387,7 @@ static int qcom_icc_set(struct icc_node *src, struct icc_node *dst)
>>>>>>> ret = __qcom_icc_set(src, src_qn, sum_bw);
>>>>>>> if (ret)
>>>>>>> return ret;
>>>>>>> - if (dst_qn) {
>>>>>>> + if (dst_qn && src_qn != dst_qn) {
>>>>>>> ret = __qcom_icc_set(dst, dst_qn, sum_bw);
>>>>>>> if (ret)
>>>>>>> return ret;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is it possible for src_qn == dst_qn ?
>>>>> As the commit message says, sync_state calls set(n, n) in
>>>>> drivers/interconnect/core.c : icc_sync_state(struct device *dev)
>>>>
>>>> So you've _seen_ that happen ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Assuming you have, then why isn't the fix in sync_state i.e. that's an error for everybody right ?
>> I believe that there's simply no other way of updating every single node
>> on its own with the icc api, without taking any links into play. But I
>> see exynos and i.mx also effectively calling it twice on each node.
>>
>> Konrad
>
> I mean. I'm fine for you to retain my RB on this qcom specific patch since this seems like a real bug to me but... it seems like a generic bug across arches that should probably be resolved @ the higher level.
>
> ?
I suppose we could change the set(n, n) in sync_state to be set(n, NULL)
and enforce parameter null-checking on all provider->set functions. Do
I understand this correctly?
Konrad
>
> ---
> bod
