Hi Viresh,
On 01.09.2020 11:45, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 01-09-20, 10:57, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
>> This patch landed in linux-next about a week ago. It introduces a
>> following warning on Samsung Exnyos3250 SoC:
>>
>> cpu cpu1: _opp_is_duplicate: duplicate OPPs detected. Existing: freq:
>> 1000000000, volt: 1150000, enabled: 1. New: freq: 1000000000, volt:
>> 1150000, enabled: 1
>> cpu cpu1: _opp_is_duplicate: duplicate OPPs detected. Existing: freq:
>> 900000000, volt: 1112500, enabled: 1. New: freq: 900000000, volt:
>> 1112500, enabled: 1
>> cpu cpu1: _opp_is_duplicate: duplicate OPPs detected. Existing: freq:
>> 800000000, volt: 1075000, enabled: 1. New: freq: 800000000, volt:
>> 1075000, enabled: 1
>> cpu cpu1: _opp_is_duplicate: duplicate OPPs detected. Existing: freq:
>> 700000000, volt: 1037500, enabled: 1. New: freq: 700000000, volt:
>> 1037500, enabled: 1
>> cpu cpu1: _opp_is_duplicate: duplicate OPPs detected. Existing: freq:
>> 600000000, volt: 1000000, enabled: 1. New: freq: 600000000, volt:
>> 1000000, enabled: 1
>> cpu cpu1: _opp_is_duplicate: duplicate OPPs detected. Existing: freq:
>> 500000000, volt: 962500, enabled: 1. New: freq: 500000000, volt: 962500,
>> enabled: 1
>> cpu cpu1: _opp_is_duplicate: duplicate OPPs detected. Existing: freq:
>> 400000000, volt: 925000, enabled: 1. New: freq: 400000000, volt: 925000,
>> enabled: 1
>> cpu cpu1: _opp_is_duplicate: duplicate OPPs detected. Existing: freq:
>> 300000000, volt: 887500, enabled: 1. New: freq: 300000000, volt: 887500,
>> enabled: 1
>> cpu cpu1: _opp_is_duplicate: duplicate OPPs detected. Existing: freq:
>> 200000000, volt: 850000, enabled: 1. New: freq: 200000000, volt: 850000,
>> enabled: 1
>> cpu cpu1: _opp_is_duplicate: duplicate OPPs detected. Existing: freq:
>> 100000000, volt: 850000, enabled: 1. New: freq: 100000000, volt: 850000,
>> enabled: 1
>>
>> I've checked a bit and this is related to the fact that Exynos3250 SoC
>> use OPP-v1 table. Is this intentional? It is not a problem to convert it
>> to OPP-v2 and mark OPP table as shared, but this is a kind of a regression.
> It took me 20 minutes for me to see "where has my patch gone" :(
>
> I wrote a small patch for that to work without any issues, but not
> sure how I missed or abandoned it. Anyway, here is the diff again and
> I will send it out again once you confirm it fixes the issue. Can you
> please also test your driver as a module with multiple insertion/removals ?
Indeed, this patch seems to fix/hide that warning. Feel free to add:
Reported-by: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Tested-by: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> diff --git a/drivers/opp/of.c b/drivers/opp/of.c
> index 5dac8bffd68c..e72753be7dc7 100644
> --- a/drivers/opp/of.c
> +++ b/drivers/opp/of.c
> @@ -905,6 +905,16 @@ static int _of_add_opp_table_v1(struct device *dev, struct opp_table *opp_table)
> const __be32 *val;
> int nr, ret = 0;
>
> + mutex_lock(&opp_table->lock);
> + if (opp_table->parsed_static_opps) {
> + opp_table->parsed_static_opps++;
> + mutex_unlock(&opp_table->lock);
> + return 0;
> + }
> +
> + opp_table->parsed_static_opps = 1;
> + mutex_unlock(&opp_table->lock);
> +
> prop = of_find_property(dev->of_node, "operating-points", NULL);
> if (!prop)
> return -ENODEV;
> @@ -921,10 +931,6 @@ static int _of_add_opp_table_v1(struct device *dev, struct opp_table *opp_table)
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> - mutex_lock(&opp_table->lock);
> - opp_table->parsed_static_opps = 1;
> - mutex_unlock(&opp_table->lock);
> -
> val = prop->value;
> while (nr) {
> unsigned long freq = be32_to_cpup(val++) * 1000;
>
Best regards
--
Marek Szyprowski, PhD
Samsung R&D Institute Poland
