18.01.2021 12:52, Viresh Kumar пишет: > On 18-01-21, 03:55, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: >> diff --git a/drivers/opp/core.c b/drivers/opp/core.c >> index 99d18befc209..341484d58e6c 100644 >> --- a/drivers/opp/core.c >> +++ b/drivers/opp/core.c >> @@ -2731,3 +2731,58 @@ int dev_pm_opp_sync_regulators(struct device *dev) >> return ret; >> } >> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(dev_pm_opp_sync_regulators); >> + >> +/** >> + * dev_pm_opp_set_voltage() - Change voltage of regulators >> + * @dev: device for which we do this operation >> + * @opp: opp based on which the voltages are to be configured >> + * >> + * Change voltage of the OPP table regulators. >> + * >> + * Return: 0 on success or a negative error value. >> + */ >> +int dev_pm_opp_set_voltage(struct device *dev, struct dev_pm_opp *opp) > > I think we should do better than this, will require some work from > your part though (or I can do it if you want). > > Basically what you wanted to do here is set the OPP for a device and > this means do whatever is required for setting the OPP. It is normally > frequency, which is not your case, but it is other things as well. > Like setting multiple regulators, bandwidth, required-opps, etc. > > I feel the right way of doing this would be to do this: > > Factor out dev_pm_opp_set_opp() from dev_pm_opp_set_rate() and make > the later call the former. And then we can just call > dev_pm_opp_set_opp() from your usecase. This will make sure we have a > single code path for all the set-opp stuff. What do you think ? > Sounds like it could be a lot of code moving and some extra complexity will be added to the code. If nobody will ever need the universal dev_pm_opp_set_opp(), then it could become a wasted effort. I'd choose the easiest path, i.e. to defer the dev_pm_opp_set_opp() implementation until somebody will really need it. But if it looks to you that it won't be a too much effort, then I'll appreciate if you could type the patch.
