Re: [PATCH 07/10] cpufreq: dt: Identify cpu-sharing for platforms without operating-points-v2

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Monday, April 25, 2016 02:56:08 PM Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 04/25, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:45 PM, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On 04/25, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > >> On 22-04-16, 15:27, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > >> > On 04/21, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > >> > > @@ -167,14 +167,16 @@ static int cpufreq_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> > >> > >   /* Get OPP-sharing information from "operating-points-v2" bindings */
> > >> > >   ret = dev_pm_opp_of_get_sharing_cpus(cpu_dev, policy->cpus);
> > > [..]
> > >> > > +         if (dev_pm_opp_get_sharing_cpus(cpu_dev, policy->cpus))
> > >> > > +                 fallback = true;
> > >> >
> > >> > I'm sort of lost, we make the same call twice here. Why would the
> > >> > return value change between the first time and the second?
> > >>
> > >> Two different APIs, which look similar :)
> > >>
> > >> The first one tries to find the sharing-cpus relation from DT, the
> > >> other one is for v1 bindings and finds it due to platform code
> > >> dev_pm_opp_set_sharing_cpus() call.
> > >
> > > Ah thanks. My eyes glossed over the "of" part. Sounds fine.
> > 
> > So that would be an "ACK", right?
> 
> Sure, I thought this was going for another round though.

OK

> I had to go back and re-read the patch once more, but you can
> have my reviewed-by on this one too.

Well, I'm still unsure what about the [6/10].

I have applied [1-5/10] for now and I'll be expecting updates or resends of
the rest.

Thanks,
Rafael