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
