Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 19/48] opp: Fix adding OPP entries in a wrong order if rate is unavailable | From | Dmitry Osipenko <> | Date | Wed, 23 Dec 2020 23:36:28 +0300 |
| |
23.12.2020 07:34, Viresh Kumar пишет: > On 22-12-20, 22:19, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: >> 22.12.2020 12:12, Viresh Kumar пишет: >>> On 17-12-20, 21:06, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: >>>> Fix adding OPP entries in a wrong (opposite) order if OPP rate is >>>> unavailable. The OPP comparison is erroneously skipped if OPP rate is >>>> missing, thus OPPs are left unsorted. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com> >>>> --- >>>> drivers/opp/core.c | 23 ++++++++++++----------- >>>> drivers/opp/opp.h | 2 +- >>>> 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/opp/core.c b/drivers/opp/core.c >>>> index 34f7e530d941..5c7f130a8de2 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/opp/core.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/opp/core.c >>>> @@ -1531,9 +1531,10 @@ static bool _opp_supported_by_regulators(struct dev_pm_opp *opp, >>>> return true; >>>> } >>>> >>>> -int _opp_compare_key(struct dev_pm_opp *opp1, struct dev_pm_opp *opp2) >>>> +int _opp_compare_key(struct dev_pm_opp *opp1, struct dev_pm_opp *opp2, >>>> + bool rate_not_available) >>>> { >>>> - if (opp1->rate != opp2->rate) >>>> + if (!rate_not_available && opp1->rate != opp2->rate) >>> >>> rate will be 0 for both the OPPs here if rate_not_available is true and so this >>> change shouldn't be required. >> >> The rate_not_available is negated in the condition. This change is >> required because both rates are 0 and then we should proceed to the >> levels comparison. > > Won't that happen without this patch ?
No
| |