Re: [PATCH v3 2/6] OPP: Add support for bandwidth OPP tables

From: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com>
To: Sibi Sankar <sibis@codeaurora.org>
Cc: Georgi Djakov <georgi.djakov@linaro.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Viresh Kumar <vireshk@kernel.org>, Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>,
	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
	"Sweeney, Sean" <seansw@qti.qualcomm.com>,
	daidavid1@codeaurora.org, Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@codeaurora.org>,
	Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
	Evan Green <evgreen@chromium.org>,
	Android Kernel Team <kernel-team@android.com>,
	Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
	"open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
	<devicetree@vger.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	adharmap@codeaurora.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/6] OPP: Add support for bandwidth OPP tables
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2019 12:10:34 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAGETcx9NpYY4OmXdjHHCjqN7eZ4=7H9TdGZvw2Qr0K9Aq==ENg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5dd35be3-fd03-c9cc-1eed-ce4bc1433363@codeaurora.org>

On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 10:33 AM Sibi Sankar <sibis@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>
> Hey Saravana,
>
> On 7/3/19 6:40 AM, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> > Not all devices quantify their performance points in terms of frequency.
> > Devices like interconnects quantify their performance points in terms of
> > bandwidth. We need a way to represent these bandwidth levels in OPP. So,
> > add support for parsing bandwidth OPPs from DT.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com>
> > ---
> >   drivers/opp/of.c  | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> >   drivers/opp/opp.h |  4 +++-
> >   2 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/opp/of.c b/drivers/opp/of.c
> > index c10c782d15aa..54fa70ed2adc 100644
> > --- a/drivers/opp/of.c
> > +++ b/drivers/opp/of.c
> > @@ -552,6 +552,35 @@ void dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table(struct device *dev)
> >   }
> >   EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table);
> >
> > +static int _read_opp_key(struct dev_pm_opp *new_opp, struct device_node *np)
> > +{
> > +     int ret;
> > +     u64 rate;
> > +     u32 bw;
> > +
> > +     ret = of_property_read_u64(np, "opp-hz", &rate);
> > +     if (!ret) {
> > +             /*
> > +              * Rate is defined as an unsigned long in clk API, and so
> > +              * casting explicitly to its type. Must be fixed once rate is 64
> > +              * bit guaranteed in clk API.
> > +              */
> > +             new_opp->rate = (unsigned long)rate
> now that the rate gets set here, please remove the rate assignment in
> _opp_add_static_v2
>
> > +             return 0;
> > +     }
> > +
> > +     ret = of_property_read_u32(np, "opp-peak-KBps", &bw);
> > +     if (ret)
> > +             return ret;
> > +     new_opp->rate = (unsigned long) &bw;
>
> should be bw instead

Good catch. Thanks!

>
> > +
> > +     ret = of_property_read_u32(np, "opp-avg-KBps", &bw);
> > +     if (!ret)
> > +             new_opp->avg_bw = (unsigned long) &bw;
>
> ditto
>
> > +
> > +     return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> >   /**
> >    * _opp_add_static_v2() - Allocate static OPPs (As per 'v2' DT bindings)
> >    * @opp_table:      OPP table
> > @@ -589,11 +618,12 @@ static struct dev_pm_opp *_opp_add_static_v2(struct opp_table *opp_table,
> >       if (!new_opp)
> >               return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> >
> > -     ret = of_property_read_u64(np, "opp-hz", &rate);
> > +     ret = _read_opp_key(new_opp, np);
> >       if (ret < 0) {
> >               /* "opp-hz" is optional for devices like power domains. */
> >               if (!opp_table->is_genpd) {
> > -                     dev_err(dev, "%s: opp-hz not found\n", __func__);
> > +                     dev_err(dev, "%s: opp-hz or opp-peak-bw not found\n",
> > +                             __func__);
>
> please remove the else part where rate value will be reset.

Ah! I flipped the meaning of the "if" check in my head. Thanks!

-Saravana