linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To: Nicola Mazzucato <nicola.mazzucato@arm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
	devicetree@vger.kernel.org, sudeep.holla@arm.com,
	rjw@rjwysocki.net, vireshk@kernel.org, robh+dt@kernel.org,
	sboyd@kernel.org, nm@ti.com, daniel.lezcano@linaro.org,
	morten.rasmussen@arm.com, chris.redpath@arm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] scmi-cpufreq: get opp_shared_cpus from opp-v2 for EM
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2020 16:31:48 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201208110148.7scxsjlkbzmxr43f@vireshk-i7> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <83b8400f-8dc4-000e-d790-0bf584a75f48@arm.com>

On 08-12-20, 10:58, Nicola Mazzucato wrote:
> 
> 
> On 12/8/20 7:26 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 08-12-20, 07:22, Nicola Mazzucato wrote:
> >> On 12/8/20 5:50 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> >>> On 02-12-20, 17:23, Nicola Mazzucato wrote:
> >>>>  	nr_opp = dev_pm_opp_get_opp_count(cpu_dev);
> >>>>  	if (nr_opp <= 0) {
> >>>> -		dev_dbg(cpu_dev, "OPP table is not ready, deferring probe\n");
> >>>> -		ret = -EPROBE_DEFER;
> >>>> -		goto out_free_opp;
> >>>> +		ret = handle->perf_ops->device_opps_add(handle, cpu_dev);
> >>>> +		if (ret) {
> >>>> +			dev_warn(cpu_dev, "failed to add opps to the device\n");
> >>>> +			goto out_free_cpumask;
> >>>> +		}
> >>>> +
> >>>> +		ret = dev_pm_opp_set_sharing_cpus(cpu_dev, opp_shared_cpus);
> >>>> +		if (ret) {
> >>>> +			dev_err(cpu_dev, "%s: failed to mark OPPs as shared: %d\n",
> >>>> +				__func__, ret);
> >>>> +			goto out_free_cpumask;
> >>>> +		}
> >>>> +
> >>>
> >>> Why do we need to call above two after calling
> >>> dev_pm_opp_get_opp_count() ?
> >>
> >> Sorry, I am not sure to understand your question here. If there are no opps for
> >> a device we want to add them to it
> > 
> > Earlier we used to call handle->perf_ops->device_opps_add() and
> > dev_pm_opp_set_sharing_cpus() before calling dev_pm_opp_get_opp_count(), why is
> > the order changed now ?
> 
> True. The order has changed to take into account the fact that when we have
> per-cpu + opp-shared, we don't need to add opps for devices which already have them.

The opp-shared thing is mostly a dummy thing to get you some information here.
What else has changed here ? I still don't understand why the OPPs would get
added and so the duplicate OPPs messages. Does this already happen ?

-- 
viresh

  reply	other threads:[~2020-12-08 11:02 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-12-02 17:23 [PATCH v4 0/4] CPUFreq: Add support for opp-sharing cpus Nicola Mazzucato
2020-12-02 17:23 ` [PATCH v4 1/4] dt-bindings/opp: Update documentation for opp-shared Nicola Mazzucato
2020-12-08  4:29   ` Viresh Kumar
2020-12-08  7:15     ` Nicola Mazzucato
2020-12-02 17:23 ` [PATCH v4 2/4] opp/of: Allow empty opp-table with opp-shared Nicola Mazzucato
2020-12-02 17:23 ` [PATCH v4 3/4] scmi-cpufreq: get opp_shared_cpus from opp-v2 for EM Nicola Mazzucato
2020-12-08  5:50   ` Viresh Kumar
2020-12-08  7:22     ` Nicola Mazzucato
2020-12-08  7:26       ` Viresh Kumar
2020-12-08 10:58         ` Nicola Mazzucato
2020-12-08 11:01           ` Viresh Kumar [this message]
2020-12-08 11:21             ` Sudeep Holla
2020-12-08 11:20         ` Sudeep Holla
2020-12-08 11:34           ` Lukasz Luba
2020-12-08 12:22             ` Sudeep Holla
2020-12-08 13:17               ` Nicola Mazzucato
2020-12-09  5:45           ` Viresh Kumar
2020-12-09  9:20             ` Nicola Mazzucato
2020-12-09  9:41             ` Sudeep Holla
2020-12-02 17:23 ` [PATCH v4 4/4] cpufreq: blacklist Arm Vexpress platforms in cpufreq-dt-platdev Nicola Mazzucato

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=20201208110148.7scxsjlkbzmxr43f@vireshk-i7 \
    --to=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
    --cc=chris.redpath@arm.com \
    --cc=daniel.lezcano@linaro.org \
    --cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=morten.rasmussen@arm.com \
    --cc=nicola.mazzucato@arm.com \
    --cc=nm@ti.com \
    --cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
    --cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
    --cc=sboyd@kernel.org \
    --cc=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
    --cc=vireshk@kernel.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).