On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 12:21 PM Viresh Kumar <viresh.ku...@linaro.org> wrote: > > On 29-01-20, 19:04, Sibi Sankar wrote: > > 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? > > Tables with dynamic OPPs should not be there in pending_opp_tables > list and so that function shall never get called for them. > > > With ^^ addressed: > > Reviewed-by: Sibi Sankar <si...@codeaurora.org> > > Tested-by: Sibi Sankar <si...@codeaurora.org> > > Thanks Sibi. > > @Saravana: Can you please give your feedback as well? I don't want to > push something that may end up breaking something else :) >
Hi Viresh and Saravana, Do you still have plans to push this? I've tested on mt8183 cci with: 1. [v4,0/5] Add required-opps support to devfreq passive gov (https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-pm/cover/20190724014222.110767-1-sarava...@google.com/): patch 2, 4, 5 2. opp: Allow lazy-linking of required-opps (https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-pm/patch/20190717222340.137578-4-sarava...@google.com/#23020727), with minor diff to let non genpd use required-opp as well: @@ -474,13 +474,6 @@ static void lazy_link_required_opp_table(struct opp_table *required_opp_table) struct device_node *required_np, *opp_np, *required_table_np; int i, ret; - /* - * We only support genpd's OPPs in the "required-opps" for now, - * as we don't know much about other cases. - */ - if (!required_opp_table->is_genpd) - return; - mutex_lock(&opp_table_lock); list_for_each_entry_safe(opp_table, temp, &pending_opp_tables, pending) { 3. PM / devfreq: Add cpu based scaling support to passive_governor and mt8183 cci, cpufreq series (https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-mediatek/cover/1594348284-14199-1-git-send-email-andrew-sh.ch...@mediatek.com/) Thanks > -- > viresh
