Hi, On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 10:29 PM Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On sc7280, to reliably blow fuses, we need an additional vote > on max performance state of 'MX' power-domain. > Add support for power-domain performance state voting in the > driver. > > Signed-off-by: Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/nvmem/qfprom.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/nvmem/qfprom.c b/drivers/nvmem/qfprom.c > index 81fbad5..4d0a576 100644 > --- a/drivers/nvmem/qfprom.c > +++ b/drivers/nvmem/qfprom.c > @@ -12,6 +12,8 @@ > #include <linux/mod_devicetable.h> > #include <linux/nvmem-provider.h> > #include <linux/platform_device.h> > +#include <linux/pm_domain.h> > +#include <linux/pm_runtime.h> > #include <linux/property.h> > #include <linux/regulator/consumer.h> > > @@ -149,6 +151,11 @@ static void qfprom_disable_fuse_blowing(const struct qfprom_priv *priv, > if (ret) > dev_warn(priv->dev, "Failed to set 0 voltage (ignoring)\n"); > > + if (priv->dev->pm_domain) { > + dev_pm_genpd_set_performance_state(priv->dev, 0); > + pm_runtime_put(priv->dev); > + } > + > ret = regulator_disable(priv->vcc); > if (ret) > dev_warn(priv->dev, "Failed to disable regulator (ignoring)\n"); > @@ -212,6 +219,16 @@ static int qfprom_enable_fuse_blowing(const struct qfprom_priv *priv, > goto err_clk_rate_set; > } > > + if (priv->dev->pm_domain) { > + ret = pm_runtime_get_sync(priv->dev); > + if (ret < 0) { > + pm_runtime_put_noidle(priv->dev); > + dev_err(priv->dev, "Failed to enable power-domain\n"); > + goto err_reg_enable; > + } > + dev_pm_genpd_set_performance_state(priv->dev, INT_MAX); > + } > + > old->timer_val = readl(priv->qfpconf + QFPROM_BLOW_TIMER_OFFSET); > old->accel_val = readl(priv->qfpconf + QFPROM_ACCEL_OFFSET); > writel(priv->soc_data->qfprom_blow_timer_value, > @@ -221,6 +238,8 @@ static int qfprom_enable_fuse_blowing(const struct qfprom_priv *priv, > > return 0; > > +err_reg_enable: > + regulator_disable(priv->vcc); > err_clk_rate_set: > clk_set_rate(priv->secclk, old->clk_rate); > err_clk_prepared: > @@ -420,6 +439,9 @@ static int qfprom_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > econfig.reg_write = qfprom_reg_write; > } > > + if (dev->pm_domain) > + pm_runtime_enable(dev); > + Where is the matching pm_runtime_disable()? Should be one in .remove(), or use devm_add_action_or_reset() to wrap a call to it. Also: do you really need to test for dev->pm_domain in your patch? Seems like it should always be fine to call pm_runtime_enable() and then always fine to call the get/put. ...and presumably always fine to even set the performance state? -Doug