01.10.2021 15:50, Ulf Hansson пишет:
> On Mon, 27 Sept 2021 at 00:42, Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Only couple drivers need to get the -ENODEV error code and majority of
>> drivers need to explicitly initialize the performance state. Add new
>> common helper which sets up OPP table for these drivers.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> include/soc/tegra/common.h | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/soc/tegra/common.h b/include/soc/tegra/common.h
>> index af41ad80ec21..5b4a042f60fb 100644
>> --- a/include/soc/tegra/common.h
>> +++ b/include/soc/tegra/common.h
>> @@ -39,4 +39,28 @@ devm_tegra_core_dev_init_opp_table(struct device *dev,
>> }
>> #endif
>>
>> +/*
>> + * This function should be invoked with the enabled runtime PM of the device
>> + * in order to initialize performance state properly. Most of Tegra devices
>> + * are assumed to be suspended at a probe time and GENPD require RPM to be
>> + * enabled to set up the rpm-resume state, otherwise device is active and
>> + * performance state is applied immediately. Note that it will initialize
>> + * OPP bandwidth if it's wired in a device-tree for this device, which is
>> + * undesirable for a suspended device.
>> + */
>> +static inline int
>> +devm_tegra_core_dev_init_opp_table_common(struct device *dev)
>> +{
>> + struct tegra_core_opp_params opp_params = {};
>> + int err;
>> +
>> + opp_params.init_state = true;
>> +
>> + err = devm_tegra_core_dev_init_opp_table(dev, &opp_params);
>> + if (err != -ENODEV)
>> + return err;
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>
> Just want to share a few thoughts around these functions.
>
> So, I assume it's fine to call
> devm_tegra_core_dev_init_opp_table_common() or
> devm_tegra_core_dev_init_opp_table() from consumer drivers during
> ->probe(), as long as those drivers are tegra specific, which I assume
> all are in the series!?
That is correct, all drivers are tegra-specific in this series. External
devices are attached to the internal SoC devices and this series is
about the SoC power management.
> My point is, a cross SoC consumer driver that needs to initiate OPP
> tables can get rather messy, if it would need to make one specific
> function call per SoC.
>
> That said, I hope we can tackle this as a separate/future problem, so
> the series can get merged as is.
Yes, as we already have seen, it's not an easy problem to make PD core
to handle it in a generic way. If there will be a similar demand from
other SoCs, then we may try to solve that problem again.
