Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 17 Jun 2020 22:13:21 +0530 | From | Sibi Sankar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v6 4/5] cpufreq: qcom: Update the bandwidth levels on frequency change |
| |
On 2020-06-17 03:41, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote: > Hi Sibi, > > after doing the review I noticed that Viresh replied on the cover > letter > that he picked the series up for v5.9, so I'm not sure if it makes > sense > to send a v7. > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 02:35:00AM +0530, Sibi Sankar wrote: > >> > > @@ -112,7 +178,7 @@ static int qcom_cpufreq_hw_read_lut(struct >> > > device *cpu_dev, >> > > >> > > if (freq != prev_freq && core_count != LUT_TURBO_IND) { >> > > table[i].frequency = freq; >> > > - dev_pm_opp_add(cpu_dev, freq * 1000, volt); >> > > + qcom_cpufreq_update_opp(cpu_dev, freq, volt); >> > >> > This is the cross-validation mentioned above, right? Shouldn't it >> > include >> > a check of the return value? >> >> Yes, this is the cross-validation step, >> we adjust the voltage if opp-tables are >> present/added successfully and enable >> them, else we would just do a add opp. >> We don't want to exit early on a single >> opp failure. We will error out a bit >> later if the opp-count ends up to be >> zero. > > At least an error/warning message would seem convenient when > adjusting/adding > an OPP fails, otherwise you would only notice by looking at the sysfs > attributes (if you'd even spot a single/few OPPs to be missing).
I did consider the case where adjust voltage fails and we do report the freq for which it fails for as well. If adding a OPP fails we will still it being listed in the sysfs cpufreq scaling_available_frequencies since it lists the freq_table in khz there instead.
-- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
| |