On 2020-06-17 03:41, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
Hi Sibi,
after doing the review I noticed that Viresh replied on the cover
letter
that he picked the series up for v5.9, so I'm not sure if it makes
sense
to send a v7.
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 02:35:00AM +0530, Sibi Sankar wrote:
> > @@ -112,7 +178,7 @@ static int qcom_cpufreq_hw_read_lut(struct
> > device *cpu_dev,
> >
> > if (freq != prev_freq && core_count != LUT_TURBO_IND) {
> > table[i].frequency = freq;
> > - dev_pm_opp_add(cpu_dev, freq * 1000, volt);
> > + qcom_cpufreq_update_opp(cpu_dev, freq, volt);
>
> This is the cross-validation mentioned above, right? Shouldn't it
> include
> a check of the return value?
Yes, this is the cross-validation step,
we adjust the voltage if opp-tables are
present/added successfully and enable
them, else we would just do a add opp.
We don't want to exit early on a single
opp failure. We will error out a bit
later if the opp-count ends up to be
zero.
At least an error/warning message would seem convenient when
adjusting/adding
an OPP fails, otherwise you would only notice by looking at the sysfs
attributes (if you'd even spot a single/few OPPs to be missing).
I did consider the case where adjust
voltage fails and we do report the
freq for which it fails for as well.
If adding a OPP fails we will still
it being listed in the sysfs cpufreq
scaling_available_frequencies since
it lists the freq_table in khz there
instead.
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
