Re: [PATCH v3] PM / OPP: discard duplicate OPPs
From: Nishanth Menon
Date: Tue May 20 2014 - 08:32:55 EST
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 20 May 2014 16:56, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> But we aren't talking about failure here. Its not failure. The operation
>> we are trying to do is already done and nothing should break if the
>> OPP was already there or its added now. Its all the same.
>
> Though after more thought into this I feel this must also be done:
>
> diff --git a/drivers/base/power/opp.c b/drivers/base/power/opp.c
> index bdf09f5..3f540d8 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/power/opp.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/power/opp.c
> @@ -453,9 +453,13 @@ int dev_pm_opp_add(struct device *dev, unsigned
> long freq, unsigned long u_volt)
> }
>
> if (new_opp->rate == opp->rate) {
> + int ret = 0;
> +
> + if (new_opp->u_volt == opp->u_volt)
> + ret = -EEXIST;
Else -> we now have two OPPs with the same key (same frequency, but
different voltage) -> That does not make sense.
Example: why would you add:
If you already had {1GHz, 1.2V}
and you attempted:
{1GHz, 1.1V} (if you could do that, then you should added {1GHz, 1.1V}
in the first place)
OR
{1GHz, 1.3V} (if you could do that, then you should add {1GHz, 1.3V}
and the {1GHz, 1.2V} is wrong)
In addition, if old OPP was disabled, that new OPP would be in enabled
state -> which also does not make sense either - since we disabled
that frequency for some reason.
> mutex_unlock(&dev_opp_list_lock);
> kfree(new_opp);
> - return 0;
> + return ret;
> }
>
> list_add_rcu(&new_opp->node, head);
The reason I ask to return error is because if we attempt to add two
OPPs with the same key (frequency), then it breaks the logic in
remaining search logic.
Regards,
Nishanth Menon
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/