linux-samsung-soc.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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

  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).