23.12.2020 07:34, Viresh Kumar пишет:
> On 22-12-20, 22:19, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>> 22.12.2020 12:12, Viresh Kumar пишет:
>>> On 17-12-20, 21:06, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>>>> Fix adding OPP entries in a wrong (opposite) order if OPP rate is
>>>> unavailable. The OPP comparison is erroneously skipped if OPP rate is
>>>> missing, thus OPPs are left unsorted.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/opp/core.c | 23 ++++++++++++-----------
>>>> drivers/opp/opp.h | 2 +-
>>>> 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/opp/core.c b/drivers/opp/core.c
>>>> index 34f7e530d941..5c7f130a8de2 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/opp/core.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/opp/core.c
>>>> @@ -1531,9 +1531,10 @@ static bool _opp_supported_by_regulators(struct dev_pm_opp *opp,
>>>> return true;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> -int _opp_compare_key(struct dev_pm_opp *opp1, struct dev_pm_opp *opp2)
>>>> +int _opp_compare_key(struct dev_pm_opp *opp1, struct dev_pm_opp *opp2,
>>>> + bool rate_not_available)
>>>> {
>>>> - if (opp1->rate != opp2->rate)
>>>> + if (!rate_not_available && opp1->rate != opp2->rate)
>>>
>>> rate will be 0 for both the OPPs here if rate_not_available is true and so this
>>> change shouldn't be required.
>>
>> The rate_not_available is negated in the condition. This change is
>> required because both rates are 0 and then we should proceed to the
>> levels comparison.
>
> Won't that happen without this patch ?
No
