Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] PM / devfreq: Add required OPPs support to passive governor
From: Viresh Kumar
Date: Wed Jul 24 2019 - 23:01:42 EST
On 23-07-19, 17:26, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 3:04 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 17-07-19, 15:23, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> > > /*
> > > @@ -56,13 +56,20 @@ static int devfreq_passive_get_target_freq(struct devfreq *devfreq,
> > > * list of parent device. Because in this case, *freq is temporary
> > > * value which is decided by ondemand governor.
> > > */
> > > - opp = devfreq_recommended_opp(parent_devfreq->dev.parent, freq, 0);
> > > - if (IS_ERR(opp)) {
> > > - ret = PTR_ERR(opp);
> > > + p_opp = devfreq_recommended_opp(parent_devfreq->dev.parent, freq, 0);
> > > + if (IS_ERR(p_opp)) {
> > > + ret = PTR_ERR(p_opp);
> > > goto out;
> > > }
> > >
> > > - dev_pm_opp_put(opp);
> > > + if (devfreq->opp_table && parent_devfreq->opp_table)
> > > + opp = dev_pm_opp_xlate_opp(parent_devfreq->opp_table,
> > > + devfreq->opp_table, p_opp);
> >
> > you put p_opp right here.
What about this comment ?
> >
> > Also shouldn't you try to get p_opp under the above if block only? As
> > that is the only user of it ?
>
> No, p_opp (used to be called opp) was used even before my changes. If
> there's no required-opps mapping this falls back to assuming the slave
> device OPP to pick should be the same index as the master device's
> opp.
>
> So I believe this patch is correct as-is.
Right.
--
viresh