On 18-01-21, 03:55, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> A required OPP may not be available, and thus, all OPPs which are using
> this required OPP should be unavailable too.
>
> Tested-by: Peter Geis <pgwipe...@gmail.com>
> Tested-by: Nicolas Chauvet <kwiz...@gmail.com>
> Tested-by: Matt Merhar <mattmer...@protonmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <dig...@gmail.com>
> ---
> drivers/opp/core.c | 11 +++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/opp/core.c b/drivers/opp/core.c
> index 48618ff3e99e..7b4d07279638 100644
> --- a/drivers/opp/core.c
> +++ b/drivers/opp/core.c
> @@ -1522,6 +1522,7 @@ int _opp_add(struct device *dev, struct dev_pm_opp
> *new_opp,
> struct opp_table *opp_table, bool rate_not_available)
> {
> struct list_head *head;
> + unsigned int i;
> int ret;
>
> mutex_lock(&opp_table->lock);
> @@ -1547,6 +1548,16 @@ int _opp_add(struct device *dev, struct dev_pm_opp
> *new_opp,
> __func__, new_opp->rate);
> }
>
> + for (i = 0; i < opp_table->required_opp_count; i++) {
> + if (new_opp->required_opps[i]->available)
> + continue;
> +
> + new_opp->available = false;
> + dev_warn(dev, "%s: OPP not supported by required OPP %pOF
> (%lu)\n",
> + __func__, new_opp->required_opps[i]->np,
> new_opp->rate);
> + break;
> + }
> +
> return 0;
> }
Applied. Thanks.
Though I am concerned about who will enable this back again if the
required-opp comes back. And I am not sure if we should even care
about that.
--
viresh
