From: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
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 12:05:42 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <383b7a8b-4cbf-d156-d9f0-4990cdde8d43@samsung.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200901094508.4sgyfv3yj575wlzp@vireshk-i7>
Hi Viresh,
On 01.09.2020 11:45, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> 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 ?
Indeed, this patch seems to fix/hide that warning. Feel free to add:
Reported-by: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>
Tested-by: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>
> 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;
>
Best regards
--
Marek Szyprowski, PhD
Samsung R&D Institute Poland
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-09-01 10:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ 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 9:09 ` [PATCH V2 2/2] cpufreq: dt: Refactor initialization to handle probe deferral properly Viresh Kumar
[not found] ` <CGME20200901085708eucas1p231ccacd7b41685ece92ee21e3b726f28@eucas1p2.samsung.com>
2020-09-01 8:57 ` Marek Szyprowski
2020-09-01 9:45 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-09-01 10:05 ` Marek Szyprowski [this message]
2020-09-01 10:12 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-10-13 9:47 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2020-10-13 9:56 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-10-14 16:40 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2020-10-16 5:03 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-10-16 6:44 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2020-10-16 8:07 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-10-27 16:29 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2020-10-28 5:48 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-10-28 9:49 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2020-10-28 9:52 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-08-24 9:17 ` [PATCH V2 1/2] opp: Allow dev_pm_opp_get_opp_table() to return -EPROBE_DEFER Krzysztof Kozlowski
2020-08-24 11:08 ` Ulf Hansson
2020-08-24 11:39 ` Stephan Gerhold
2020-10-15 18:05 ` 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
2020-10-27 22:24 ` Guenter Roeck
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=383b7a8b-4cbf-d156-d9f0-4990cdde8d43@samsung.com \
--to=m.szyprowski@samsung.com \
--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=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 \
--cc=viresh.kumar@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).