[...] > > > That's right, but why do we want to call dev_pm_opp_set_opp() for the > > multiple PM domain case then? It makes the behaviour inconsistent. > > To have a common path for all required OPP device types, irrespective of the > fact that the required OPP device is a genpd or not. And we are talking about a > required OPP of a separate device here, it must be set via this call only, > technically speaking. > > Genpd makes it a little complex, and I agree to that. But I strongly feel this > code needs to be generic and not genpd specific. The OPP core should have as > less genpd specific code as possible. It must handle all device types with a > single code path. I agree that we really should avoid genpd specific code and that's exactly what I am working towards too. However, calling dev_pm_opp_set_opp() from _set_required_opps() looks to me like it has the exact opposite effect: *) To solve the bug according to the change you proposed, means more genpd hacks. **) To make the code for the required OPPs consistent between the single/multiple PM domain case, we need additional genpd hacks. ***) We can't remove some of the existing genpd hacks [1], as those would then still be needed. Finally, while I understand that you prefer a single code path, we can still keep _set_required_opps() common and generic. Today, it's used only for performance-states of PM domains (the involved code isn't even genpd specific as it calls dev_pm_domain_set_performance_state()). If tomorrow we see a need to extend it to additional resources, it's easy also without calling dev_pm_opp_set_opp() from it. Kind regards Uffe [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240718234319.356451-7-ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx/
