On 18-08-21, 09:22, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: > 18.08.2021 08:58, Viresh Kumar пишет: > > What about calling dev_pm_opp_set_rate(dev, clk_get_rate(dev)) here > > instead ? That will work, right ? The advantage is it works without > > any special routine to do so. > > It will work, but a dedicated helper is nicer. > > > I also wonder looking at your gr3d.c changes, you set a set-opp > > helper, but the driver doesn't call set_opp_rate at all. Who calls it > > ? > > dev_pm_opp_sync() calls it from _set_opp(). Okay, please use dev_pm_opp_set_rate() instead then. New helper just adds to the confusion and isn't doing anything special apart from doing clk_get_rate() for you. > > And if it is all about just syncing the genpd core, then can the genpd > > core do something like what clk framework does? i.e. allow a new > > optional genpd callback, get_performance_state() (just like > > set_performance_state()), which can be called initially by the core to > > get the performance to something other than zero. opp-set-rate is > > there to set the performance state and enable the stuff as well. > > That's why it looks incorrect in your case, where the function was > > only required to be called once, and you are ending up calling it on > > each resume. Limiting that with another local variable is bad as well. > > We discussed variant with get_performance_state() previously and Ulf > didn't like it either since it still requires to touch 'internals' of GENPD. Hmm, I wonder if that would be a problem since only genpd core is going to call that routine anyway. -- viresh
