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=-7.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,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 D8D2FC433E6 for ; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 11:06:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95D30229C6 for ; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 11:06:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2389392AbhARLGI (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Jan 2021 06:06:08 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:38384 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2389375AbhARLFu (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Jan 2021 06:05:50 -0500 Received: from mail-pl1-x635.google.com (mail-pl1-x635.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::635]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E2214C061574 for ; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 03:05:09 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pl1-x635.google.com with SMTP id t6so8473695plq.1 for ; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 03:05:09 -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=F9OQYnavHQh6bInpVCgqxHJv31pmZgSymN0VE7tszfk=; b=uHiQpPrKff4B+Bu4b3Uw6CEvRp88ejQHmkcqCav+K5jRXxOd7H9iZ8b3LdJ43LJK8H 1H/PN0RmI1u69Yl0uDvL00yx47sYssOdXGQhn4ARwTmp143byQ15wYJRMGqo+ZHvd9Nj Kb9w3CXJzRQdjggnlhx9eZ8Ak60nAyHb0qDe1HIvCwlnCsjQ9xq1gW/swlR9o5tCa9q+ ASr4qB87WY74lv8qtdQY2s5IoFw9mFLmpvwtufih4qTHZzHPDlaLpe+3ABgptj7HtTZj c7uquBZ5TMvWqU/zPQx7OD7j8dx4YW1FEoN1VUXWVUAby0EQEwOkI7v/qCU0R63Z0q9e r0pA== 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=F9OQYnavHQh6bInpVCgqxHJv31pmZgSymN0VE7tszfk=; b=hhFgGnlAyLqGe6+r3Q34ZcVnPJCHzvsOlz9O1nFMjylD0ZIq/vpRWU/iRtgGcqxk7P G5KID+yn5l2OeCcNjhrGefybiegy/ACbgS5N1NdaIJ2LlRJ0Xa2aD4qruuVbG/E/VND4 tLVJOVyD1S6r+7jhtdvAFfdhxxzZiq2xTcKIhGHhp2+zkZygw6ZgjQaKTuQ9bj6I+7tI wfPqgqY/i2hwpnnx5QM0r/bF3O6c5AXDU5a1H79AyD88ZcWH5J5OrjCXrRz7nA9T7mUC zoD5Tb1En5gh24NnCZqo4q6QluyW8A1yzPHotMa2mP0UzDgxMcZhaWw8zNBqozbZfLYp fvXw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532LdByUnoEpZtZc3ayOyycNvezEmcEM27T6Bno63FJQPZ7vUGi1 IDrmr99pVpqQm0vF40VOCjHcPQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxeVSyHqI2EvkjRyPU8nAOFau0V4zeSgemv9Z5asSa44ik/HYhXmOYIPlsQxBg9EFClym1bIw== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:f08:: with SMTP id br8mr25567326pjb.134.1610967909472; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 03:05:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([122.172.59.240]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k8sm525490pfp.114.2021.01.18.03.05.07 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 18 Jan 2021 03:05:08 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2021 16:35:06 +0530 From: Viresh Kumar To: Ulf Hansson Cc: Dmitry Osipenko , Thierry Reding , Jonathan Hunter , Peter Geis , Nicolas Chauvet , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Kevin Hilman , Peter De Schrijver , Viresh Kumar , Stephen Boyd , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Matt Merhar , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-tegra , Linux PM Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] PM: domains: Make set_performance_state() callback optional Message-ID: <20210118110506.linvsoca7jbl42iq@vireshk-i7> References: <20210118011330.4145-1-digetx@gmail.com> <20210118011330.4145-2-digetx@gmail.com> <20210118072855.anncyl6z3e5uznvd@vireshk-i7> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716-391-311a52 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org On 18-01-21, 11:59, Ulf Hansson wrote: > Good point! I certainly overlooked that when reviewing. We need to > reevaluate the new state when propagating to the parent(s). > > To me, it looks like when doing the propagation we must check if the > parent has the ->set_performance_state() callback assigned. If so, we > should call dev_pm_opp_xlate_performance_state(), but otherwise just > use the value of "state", when doing the reevaluation. > > Does it make sense? That will work but I am wondering if there is a way to avoid the unnecessary propagation if we can somehow find out if someone above in hierarchy supports pstates or not ? -- viresh