On 08-12-20, 07:22, Nicola Mazzucato wrote:
> On 12/8/20 5:50 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 02-12-20, 17:23, Nicola Mazzucato wrote:
> >> nr_opp = dev_pm_opp_get_opp_count(cpu_dev);
> >> if (nr_opp <= 0) {
> >> - dev_dbg(cpu_dev, "OPP table is not ready, deferring probe\n");
> >> - ret = -EPROBE_DEFER;
> >> - goto out_free_opp;
> >> + ret = handle->perf_ops->device_opps_add(handle, cpu_dev);
> >> + if (ret) {
> >> + dev_warn(cpu_dev, "failed to add opps to the device\n");
> >> + goto out_free_cpumask;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + ret = dev_pm_opp_set_sharing_cpus(cpu_dev, opp_shared_cpus);
> >> + if (ret) {
> >> + dev_err(cpu_dev, "%s: failed to mark OPPs as shared:
> >> %d\n",
> >> + __func__, ret);
> >> + goto out_free_cpumask;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >
> > Why do we need to call above two after calling
> > dev_pm_opp_get_opp_count() ?
>
> Sorry, I am not sure to understand your question here. If there are no opps
> for
> a device we want to add them to it
Earlier we used to call handle->perf_ops->device_opps_add() and
dev_pm_opp_set_sharing_cpus() before calling dev_pm_opp_get_opp_count(), why is
the order changed now ?
> otherwise no need as they would be duplicated.
I am not sure why they would be duplicated in your case. I though
device_opps_add() is responsible for dynamically adding the OPPs here.
> > And we don't check the return value of
> > the below call anymore, moreover we have to call it twice now.
>
> This second get_opp_count is required such that we register em with the
> correct
> opp number after having added them. Without this the opp_count would not be
> correct.
What if the count is still 0 ? What about deferred probe we were doing earlier ?
--
viresh
