| Message ID | 25cb4d7e9169815448193bd93305fae31a83792c.1450777582.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On 11-01-16, 17:29, Stephen Boyd wrote: > On 12/22, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > @@ -580,6 +581,21 @@ static struct device_opp *_add_device_opp_reg(struct device *dev, > > return NULL; > > } > > > > + /* > > + * Only required for backward compatibility with v1 bindings, but isn't > > + * harmful for other cases. And so we do it unconditionally. > > + */ > > + np = of_node_get(dev->of_node); > > + if (np) { > > + u32 val; > > + > > + if (!of_property_read_u32(np, "clock-latency", &val)) > > + dev_opp->clock_latency_ns_max = val; This is u64 type variable, but we are reading a 32 bit value from DT and so wrote it that way. > > + of_property_read_u32(np, "voltage-tolerance", > > + &dev_opp->voltage_tolerance_v1); And this is u32 type. > Why do we conditionalize the assignment for clock latency but not > for voltage tolerance? Nothing more than what I described earlier. -- viresh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 12-01-16, 16:36, Stephen Boyd wrote: > On 01/12, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > On 11-01-16, 17:29, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > > On 12/22, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > > @@ -580,6 +581,21 @@ static struct device_opp *_add_device_opp_reg(struct device *dev, > > > > return NULL; > > > > } > > > > > > > > + /* > > > > + * Only required for backward compatibility with v1 bindings, but isn't > > > > + * harmful for other cases. And so we do it unconditionally. > > > > + */ > > > > + np = of_node_get(dev->of_node); > > > > + if (np) { > > > > + u32 val; > > > > + > > > > + if (!of_property_read_u32(np, "clock-latency", &val)) > > > > + dev_opp->clock_latency_ns_max = val; > > > > This is u64 type variable, but we are reading a 32 bit value from DT > > and so wrote it that way. > > > > > > + of_property_read_u32(np, "voltage-tolerance", > > > > + &dev_opp->voltage_tolerance_v1); > > > > And this is u32 type. > > > > > Why do we conditionalize the assignment for clock latency but not > > > for voltage tolerance? > > > > Nothing more than what I described earlier. > > > > Ok. Should I consider that an Reviewed-by ? -- viresh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/drivers/base/power/opp/core.c b/drivers/base/power/opp/core.c index 5746993aa71d..1bb09138cdae 100644 --- a/drivers/base/power/opp/core.c +++ b/drivers/base/power/opp/core.c @@ -563,6 +563,7 @@ static struct device_opp *_add_device_opp_reg(struct device *dev, { struct device_opp *dev_opp; struct device_list_opp *list_dev; + struct device_node *np; /* * Allocate a new device OPP table. In the infrequent case where a new @@ -580,6 +581,21 @@ static struct device_opp *_add_device_opp_reg(struct device *dev, return NULL; } + /* + * Only required for backward compatibility with v1 bindings, but isn't + * harmful for other cases. And so we do it unconditionally. + */ + np = of_node_get(dev->of_node); + if (np) { + u32 val; + + if (!of_property_read_u32(np, "clock-latency", &val)) + dev_opp->clock_latency_ns_max = val; + of_property_read_u32(np, "voltage-tolerance", + &dev_opp->voltage_tolerance_v1); + of_node_put(np); + } + dev_opp->regulator = regulator_get_optional(dev, name); if (IS_ERR(dev_opp->regulator)) dev_info(dev, "%s: no regulator (%s) found: %ld\n", __func__, @@ -865,6 +881,7 @@ static int _opp_add_v1(struct device *dev, unsigned long freq, long u_volt, { struct device_opp *dev_opp; struct dev_pm_opp *new_opp; + unsigned long tol; int ret; /* Hold our list modification lock here */ @@ -878,7 +895,10 @@ static int _opp_add_v1(struct device *dev, unsigned long freq, long u_volt, /* populate the opp table */ new_opp->rate = freq; + tol = u_volt * dev_opp->voltage_tolerance_v1 / 100; new_opp->u_volt = u_volt; + new_opp->u_volt_min = u_volt - tol; + new_opp->u_volt_max = u_volt + tol; new_opp->available = true; new_opp->dynamic = dynamic; diff --git a/drivers/base/power/opp/opp.h b/drivers/base/power/opp/opp.h index 08aae35ab8e0..a39347d8693f 100644 --- a/drivers/base/power/opp/opp.h +++ b/drivers/base/power/opp/opp.h @@ -139,6 +139,8 @@ struct device_list_opp { * @dentry: debugfs dentry pointer of the real device directory (not links). * @dentry_name: Name of the real dentry. * + * @voltage_tolerance_v1: In percentage, for v1 bindings only. + * * This is an internal data structure maintaining the link to opps attached to * a device. This structure is not meant to be shared to users as it is * meant for book keeping and private to OPP library. @@ -157,6 +159,10 @@ struct device_opp { struct device_node *np; unsigned long clock_latency_ns_max; + + /* For backward compatibility with v1 bindings */ + unsigned int voltage_tolerance_v1; + bool shared_opp; struct dev_pm_opp *suspend_opp;
V2 bindings have better support for clock-latency and voltage-tolerance and doesn't need special care. To use callbacks, like dev_pm_opp_get_max_{transition|volt}_latency(), irrespective of the bindings, the core needs to know clock-latency/voltage-tolerance for the earlier bindings. This patch reads clock-latency/voltage-tolerance from the device node, irrespective of the bindings (to keep it simple) and use them only for V1 bindings. Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> --- drivers/base/power/opp/core.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++ drivers/base/power/opp/opp.h | 6 ++++++ 2 files changed, 26 insertions(+) -- 2.7.0.rc1.186.g94414c4 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html