Re: [PATCH V2 2/2] cpufreq: dt: Refactor initialization to handle probe deferral properly

[Marek Szyprowski]

Hi Viresh

On 24.08.2020 11:09, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> From: Stephan Gerhold <stephan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> cpufreq-dt is currently unable to handle -EPROBE_DEFER properly
> because the error code is not propagated for the cpufreq_driver->init()
> callback. Instead, it attempts to avoid the situation by temporarily
> requesting all resources within resources_available() and releasing them
> again immediately after. This has several disadvantages:
>
>    - Whenever we add something like interconnect handling to the OPP core
>      we need to patch cpufreq-dt to request these resources early.
>
>    - resources_available() is only run for CPU0, but other clusters may
>      eventually depend on other resources that are not available yet.
>      (See FIXME comment removed by this commit...)
>
>    - All resources need to be looked up several times.
>
> Now that the OPP core can propagate -EPROBE_DEFER during initialization,
> it would be nice to avoid all that trouble and just propagate its error
> code when necessary.
>
> This commit refactors the cpufreq-dt driver to initialize private_data
> before registering the cpufreq driver. We do this by iterating over
> all possible CPUs and ensure that all resources are initialized:
>
>    1. dev_pm_opp_get_opp_table() ensures the OPP table is allocated
>       and initialized with clock and interconnects.
>
>    2. dev_pm_opp_set_regulators() requests the regulators and assigns
>       them to the OPP table.
>
>    3. We call dev_pm_opp_of_get_sharing_cpus() early so that we only
>       initialize the OPP table once for each shared policy.
>
> With these changes, we actually end up saving a few lines of code,
> the resources are no longer looked up multiple times and everything
> should be much more robust.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stephan Gerhold <stephan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> [ Viresh: Use list_head structure for maintaining the list and minor
> 	  changes ]
> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>

This patch landed in linux-next about a week ago. It introduces a 
following warning on Samsung Exnyos3250 SoC:

cpu cpu1: _opp_is_duplicate: duplicate OPPs detected. Existing: freq: 
1000000000, volt: 1150000, enabled: 1. New: freq: 1000000000, volt: 
1150000, enabled: 1
cpu cpu1: _opp_is_duplicate: duplicate OPPs detected. Existing: freq: 
900000000, volt: 1112500, enabled: 1. New: freq: 900000000, volt: 
1112500, enabled: 1
cpu cpu1: _opp_is_duplicate: duplicate OPPs detected. Existing: freq: 
800000000, volt: 1075000, enabled: 1. New: freq: 800000000, volt: 
1075000, enabled: 1
cpu cpu1: _opp_is_duplicate: duplicate OPPs detected. Existing: freq: 
700000000, volt: 1037500, enabled: 1. New: freq: 700000000, volt: 
1037500, enabled: 1
cpu cpu1: _opp_is_duplicate: duplicate OPPs detected. Existing: freq: 
600000000, volt: 1000000, enabled: 1. New: freq: 600000000, volt: 
1000000, enabled: 1
cpu cpu1: _opp_is_duplicate: duplicate OPPs detected. Existing: freq: 
500000000, volt: 962500, enabled: 1. New: freq: 500000000, volt: 962500, 
enabled: 1
cpu cpu1: _opp_is_duplicate: duplicate OPPs detected. Existing: freq: 
400000000, volt: 925000, enabled: 1. New: freq: 400000000, volt: 925000, 
enabled: 1
cpu cpu1: _opp_is_duplicate: duplicate OPPs detected. Existing: freq: 
300000000, volt: 887500, enabled: 1. New: freq: 300000000, volt: 887500, 
enabled: 1
cpu cpu1: _opp_is_duplicate: duplicate OPPs detected. Existing: freq: 
200000000, volt: 850000, enabled: 1. New: freq: 200000000, volt: 850000, 
enabled: 1
cpu cpu1: _opp_is_duplicate: duplicate OPPs detected. Existing: freq: 
100000000, volt: 850000, enabled: 1. New: freq: 100000000, volt: 850000, 
enabled: 1

I've checked a bit and this is related to the fact that Exynos3250 SoC 
use OPP-v1 table. Is this intentional? It is not a problem to convert it 
to OPP-v2 and mark OPP table as shared, but this is a kind of a regression.

> ...

Best regards
-- 
Marek Szyprowski, PhD
Samsung R&D Institute Poland