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.
I guess it's not clear by looking at this patch, please see a full
version of the function:
int _opp_compare_key(struct dev_pm_opp *opp1, struct dev_pm_opp *opp2,
bool rate_not_available)
{
if (!rate_not_available && opp1->rate != opp2->rate)
return opp1->rate < opp2->rate ? -1 : 1;
if (opp1->bandwidth && opp2->bandwidth &&
opp1->bandwidth[0].peak != opp2->bandwidth[0].peak)
return opp1->bandwidth[0].peak < opp2->bandwidth[0].peak ? -1 : 1;
if (opp1->level != opp2->level)
return opp1->level < opp2->level ? -1 : 1;
return 0;
}
Perhaps we could check whether opp1->rate=0, like it's done for the
opp1->bandwidth. I'll consider this variant for v3, thanks.
