From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECADAC33C9E for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 11:25:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF088206DB for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 11:25:59 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linaro.org header.i=@linaro.org header.b="CtjHRbGp" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726098AbgAHLZ7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Jan 2020 06:25:59 -0500 Received: from mail-pl1-f195.google.com ([209.85.214.195]:42558 "EHLO mail-pl1-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726281AbgAHLZ7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Jan 2020 06:25:59 -0500 Received: by mail-pl1-f195.google.com with SMTP id p9so1003103plk.9 for ; Wed, 08 Jan 2020 03:25:58 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=2jDjtJ0LH2mOG9+BZqbx8yqqoSjYxW1SBZl9GtzI988=; b=CtjHRbGpYB3RTWUy42hyridIUPO9xTDmfbMefaeG71PHp+Sf/G1DKQINkrtN6yMJAl Ea2tB8EO6xVDkcpato+OYYbpMamWooyj4Kk1x773HgjlUOFyhtp7Caei5B60RUsYrqIP EkwH0hWU8gT7DDXexq/0U8DxMKXGkoc7bi7Tru/aYDUNoYzEObvP1zvR+D44noTbCKOE uhSzqp0HrWcfmk1H9BZACz4ZK7iRzw5HLOJA9v/a6hdetvyV1zt1MXoQSax3YFd/xZC2 u99b6del2xMNPmh9ceI+czmQTcAvEXJyFByezipPkOp74AaxHPwlgY217OjlZD72MlCq PcLw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=2jDjtJ0LH2mOG9+BZqbx8yqqoSjYxW1SBZl9GtzI988=; b=IFYjKfb81emr16FGT6qfQvxwCU/LcIiwYpGsuMsYTCoMxFQnlaZGhaIhbTu+crdP3H E+FXSQMxuoDz4RWS8OZZKnYJ6wg9R+nK6q0XdhIaq30GGxT41mL6Kfyrdw89S4U90lGO FbpGkrDe5biweYZLgOanmCkrJbzE+H8eJJFZXgN8RLCTaFfuk7esD3s2OWgn9xy8nqyS w64YIOqu5rgZ7sMJjJ04CQ3uX1U6ZyFhZPsFatbhe63ctPTAywHiutiWDqWeZxE94WfO Xqte5EP830R94WdRFwWxMxWkP3Trhbrm2YW9jZEIYiiE49yRwM0DT4sacqeB1uqoF5Nr 0kgw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW286G0s6lQnrX2MC5oAUpygAbUWfpT5b6PIiw9fsXAh8L7raUy t5MFfojPf24V8yWnyrygMENljQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqw/4SBhbRUxwhtzItPaL11vUZHZyu0FFeuTOqk4dHHi/Cg7gtxxXqMqYdVLbQnKNKseyzN+nQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:8a91:: with SMTP id p17mr4545912plo.75.1578482758436; Wed, 08 Jan 2020 03:25:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([122.172.26.121]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 68sm3294721pge.14.2020.01.08.03.25.57 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 08 Jan 2020 03:25:57 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2020 16:55:55 +0530 From: Viresh Kumar To: Saravana Kannan Cc: Rob Herring , Mark Rutland , Viresh Kumar , Nishanth Menon , Stephen Boyd , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Georgi Djakov , vincent.guittot@linaro.org, seansw@qti.qualcomm.com, daidavid1@codeaurora.org, adharmap@codeaurora.org, Rajendra Nayak , sibis@codeaurora.org, bjorn.andersson@linaro.org, evgreen@chromium.org, kernel-team@android.com, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/3] Introduce Bandwidth OPPs for interconnects Message-ID: <20200108112522.afg535ybfxrlypcv@vireshk-i7> References: <20191207002424.201796-1-saravanak@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20191207002424.201796-1-saravanak@google.com> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716-391-311a52 Sender: devicetree-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 06-12-19, 16:24, Saravana Kannan wrote: > Viresh/Stephen, > > I don't think all the additional code/diff in this v6 series is worth it > to avoid using the rate field to store peak bandwidth. However, since folks > weren't too happy about it, here it is. I prefer the v5 series, but not > too strongly tied to it. Let me know what you think Viresh/Stephen. > > Btw, I wasn't sure of opp-hz = 0 I am not sure either ;) > or opp-level = 0 were allowed. Also, I think this is allowed. > it's not clear why the duplicate check isn't done for opp-level when > _opp_add() is called. Based on that, we could add opp-level comparison This should be done. Please do that in the first patch as I suggested in the code as well. > to opp_compare_key(). That's why you'll see a few spurious > opp_key.level = 0 lines. Let me know how you want to go with that. > > I could also add a opp.key_type enum field to store what key type the > opp entry is. But looks like I can get away without adding an > unnecessary variable. So, I've skipped that for now. Not in the OPP struct, but such an enum can be used for helper routines as I commented. -- viresh