Re: [PATCH v3 3/5] OPP: Improve require-opps linking

[Sibi Sankar]

Hey Viresh,


On 1/27/20 11:41 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 25-11-19, 16:58, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > >From 8df083ca64d82ff57f778689271cc1be75aa99c4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > Message-Id: <8df083ca64d82ff57f778689271cc1be75aa99c4.1574681211.git.viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2019 13:57:58 +0530
> > Subject: [PATCH] opp: Allow lazy-linking of required-opps
> >
> > The OPP core currently requires the required opp tables to be available
> > before the dependent OPP table is added, as it needs to create links
> > from the dependent OPP table to the required ones. This may not be
> > convenient to all the platforms though, as this requires strict ordering
> > of probing of drivers.
> >
> > This patch allows lazy-linking of the required-opps. The OPP tables for
> > which the required-opp-tables aren't available at the time of their
> > initialization, are added to a special list of OPP tables:
> > pending_opp_tables. Later on, whenever a new OPP table is registered
> > with the OPP core, we check if it is required by an OPP table in the
> > pending list; if yes, then we complete the linking then and there.
> >
> > An OPP table is marked unusable until the time all its required-opp
> > tables are available. And if lazy-linking fails for an OPP table, the
> > OPP core disables all of its OPPs to make sure no one can use them.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >   drivers/opp/core.c |  13 ++++++
> >   drivers/opp/of.c   | 113 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> >   drivers/opp/opp.h  |   4 +-
> >   3 files changed, 124 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> I was hoping to queue this up for next release, any update on getting
> this tested ?

I don't have a gen-pd use case to test against but with the is_genpd
check removed it works as expected when I used it against this
series: https://patchwork.kernel.org/cover/11353185/

In the lazy_link_required_opps fn shouldn't we skip the dynamic
opps in the the opp list?

With ^^ addressed:
Reviewed-by: Sibi Sankar <sibis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Tested-by: Sibi Sankar <sibis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

>

--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc, is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project