Re: [PATCH v6 4/5] cpufreq: qcom: Update the bandwidth levels on frequency change

[Sibi Sankar]

On 2020-06-17 03:41, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> Hi Sibi,
>
> after doing the review I noticed that Viresh replied on the cover 
> letter
> that he picked the series up for v5.9, so I'm not sure if it makes 
> sense
> to send a v7.
>
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 02:35:00AM +0530, Sibi Sankar wrote:
>
> > > > @@ -112,7 +178,7 @@ static int qcom_cpufreq_hw_read_lut(struct
> > > > device *cpu_dev,
> > > >
> > > >  		if (freq != prev_freq && core_count != LUT_TURBO_IND) {
> > > >  			table[i].frequency = freq;
> > > > -			dev_pm_opp_add(cpu_dev, freq * 1000, volt);
> > > > +			qcom_cpufreq_update_opp(cpu_dev, freq, volt);
> > >
> > > This is the cross-validation mentioned above, right? Shouldn't it
> > > include
> > > a check of the return value?
> >
> > Yes, this is the cross-validation step,
> > we adjust the voltage if opp-tables are
> > present/added successfully and enable
> > them, else we would just do a add opp.
> > We don't want to exit early on a single
> > opp failure. We will error out a bit
> > later if the opp-count ends up to be
> > zero.
>
> At least an error/warning message would seem convenient when 
> adjusting/adding
> an OPP fails, otherwise you would only notice by looking at the sysfs
> attributes (if you'd even spot a single/few OPPs to be missing).

I did consider the case where adjust
voltage fails and we do report the
freq for which it fails for as well.
If adding a OPP fails we will still
it being listed in the sysfs cpufreq
scaling_available_frequencies since
it lists the freq_table in khz there
instead.

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