From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>
Cc: ulf.hansson@linaro.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>, Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>,
nks@flawful.org, georgi.djakov@linaro.org,
Stephan Gerhold <stephan@gerhold.net>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
'Linux Samsung SOC' <linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 2/2] cpufreq: dt: Refactor initialization to handle probe deferral properly
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 15:15:08 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200901094508.4sgyfv3yj575wlzp@vireshk-i7> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <00a87bad-f750-b08c-4ccb-545b90dd87fc@samsung.com>
On 01-09-20, 10:57, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> This patch landed in linux-next about a week ago. It introduces a
> following warning on Samsung Exnyos3250 SoC:
>
> cpu cpu1: _opp_is_duplicate: duplicate OPPs detected. Existing: freq:
> 1000000000, volt: 1150000, enabled: 1. New: freq: 1000000000, volt:
> 1150000, enabled: 1
> cpu cpu1: _opp_is_duplicate: duplicate OPPs detected. Existing: freq:
> 900000000, volt: 1112500, enabled: 1. New: freq: 900000000, volt:
> 1112500, enabled: 1
> cpu cpu1: _opp_is_duplicate: duplicate OPPs detected. Existing: freq:
> 800000000, volt: 1075000, enabled: 1. New: freq: 800000000, volt:
> 1075000, enabled: 1
> cpu cpu1: _opp_is_duplicate: duplicate OPPs detected. Existing: freq:
> 700000000, volt: 1037500, enabled: 1. New: freq: 700000000, volt:
> 1037500, enabled: 1
> cpu cpu1: _opp_is_duplicate: duplicate OPPs detected. Existing: freq:
> 600000000, volt: 1000000, enabled: 1. New: freq: 600000000, volt:
> 1000000, enabled: 1
> cpu cpu1: _opp_is_duplicate: duplicate OPPs detected. Existing: freq:
> 500000000, volt: 962500, enabled: 1. New: freq: 500000000, volt: 962500,
> enabled: 1
> cpu cpu1: _opp_is_duplicate: duplicate OPPs detected. Existing: freq:
> 400000000, volt: 925000, enabled: 1. New: freq: 400000000, volt: 925000,
> enabled: 1
> cpu cpu1: _opp_is_duplicate: duplicate OPPs detected. Existing: freq:
> 300000000, volt: 887500, enabled: 1. New: freq: 300000000, volt: 887500,
> enabled: 1
> cpu cpu1: _opp_is_duplicate: duplicate OPPs detected. Existing: freq:
> 200000000, volt: 850000, enabled: 1. New: freq: 200000000, volt: 850000,
> enabled: 1
> cpu cpu1: _opp_is_duplicate: duplicate OPPs detected. Existing: freq:
> 100000000, volt: 850000, enabled: 1. New: freq: 100000000, volt: 850000,
> enabled: 1
>
> I've checked a bit and this is related to the fact that Exynos3250 SoC
> use OPP-v1 table. Is this intentional? It is not a problem to convert it
> to OPP-v2 and mark OPP table as shared, but this is a kind of a regression.
It took me 20 minutes for me to see "where has my patch gone" :(
I wrote a small patch for that to work without any issues, but not
sure how I missed or abandoned it. Anyway, here is the diff again and
I will send it out again once you confirm it fixes the issue. Can you
please also test your driver as a module with multiple insertion/removals ?
diff --git a/drivers/opp/of.c b/drivers/opp/of.c
index 5dac8bffd68c..e72753be7dc7 100644
--- a/drivers/opp/of.c
+++ b/drivers/opp/of.c
@@ -905,6 +905,16 @@ static int _of_add_opp_table_v1(struct device *dev, struct opp_table *opp_table)
const __be32 *val;
int nr, ret = 0;
+ mutex_lock(&opp_table->lock);
+ if (opp_table->parsed_static_opps) {
+ opp_table->parsed_static_opps++;
+ mutex_unlock(&opp_table->lock);
+ return 0;
+ }
+
+ opp_table->parsed_static_opps = 1;
+ mutex_unlock(&opp_table->lock);
+
prop = of_find_property(dev->of_node, "operating-points", NULL);
if (!prop)
return -ENODEV;
@@ -921,10 +931,6 @@ static int _of_add_opp_table_v1(struct device *dev, struct opp_table *opp_table)
return -EINVAL;
}
- mutex_lock(&opp_table->lock);
- opp_table->parsed_static_opps = 1;
- mutex_unlock(&opp_table->lock);
-
val = prop->value;
while (nr) {
unsigned long freq = be32_to_cpup(val++) * 1000;
--
viresh
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-09-01 9:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-08-24 9:09 [PATCH V2 1/2] opp: Allow dev_pm_opp_get_opp_table() to return -EPROBE_DEFER Viresh Kumar
2020-08-24 9:17 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2020-08-24 11:08 ` Ulf Hansson
2020-08-24 11:39 ` Stephan Gerhold
[not found] ` <f75c61f193f396608d592ae2a9938264d582c038.1598260050.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
[not found] ` <CGME20200901085708eucas1p231ccacd7b41685ece92ee21e3b726f28@eucas1p2.samsung.com>
2020-09-01 8:57 ` [PATCH V2 2/2] cpufreq: dt: Refactor initialization to handle probe deferral properly Marek Szyprowski
2020-09-01 9:45 ` Viresh Kumar [this message]
2020-09-01 10:05 ` Marek Szyprowski
2020-09-01 10:12 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-10-15 18:05 ` [PATCH V2 1/2] opp: Allow dev_pm_opp_get_opp_table() to return -EPROBE_DEFER Sudeep Holla
2020-10-16 4:24 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-10-16 6:00 ` Sudeep Holla
2020-10-16 11:12 ` Sudeep Holla
2020-10-16 15:28 ` Stephan Gerhold
2020-10-19 4:58 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-10-19 9:17 ` Sudeep Holla
2020-10-19 9:24 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-10-19 10:12 ` Sudeep Holla
2020-10-19 10:35 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-10-19 14:10 ` Sudeep Holla
2020-10-20 5:05 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-10-20 5:54 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-10-20 9:37 ` Sudeep Holla
2020-10-20 9:41 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-10-20 9:52 ` Sudeep Holla
2020-10-20 9:59 ` Viresh Kumar
[not found] ` <20201027222428.GA125472@roeck-us.net>
2020-10-28 4:06 ` Viresh Kumar
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200901094508.4sgyfv3yj575wlzp@vireshk-i7 \
--to=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=georgi.djakov@linaro.org \
--cc=krzk@kernel.org \
--cc=lgirdwood@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=m.szyprowski@samsung.com \
--cc=nks@flawful.org \
--cc=nm@ti.com \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=sboyd@kernel.org \
--cc=stephan@gerhold.net \
--cc=ulf.hansson@linaro.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).