[PATCH 6/9] OPP: Extend support for the opp-level beyond required-opps

Viresh Kumar viresh.kumar at linaro.org
Tue Oct 3 22:04:27 PDT 2023


On 03-10-23, 14:36, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> Can you please explain further on this. Rafael has acked those
> patches, so it should be perfectly fine for you to pick them via your
> tree too. There is no need to defer them.

Ahh, then it is fine.

> > I will then push out a branch and you can
> > rebase your patches on top of it ? And then probably Sudeep or someone else can
> > apply everything ?
> 
> Or are you suggesting to just take one of the patches from my series,
> and then I will re-base everything on top?
> 
> Just trying to understand the way forward. :-)

Applied patches 1-6/9 and the fixed routine looks like this now:

+static int _set_opp_level(struct device *dev, struct opp_table *opp_table,
+                         struct dev_pm_opp *opp)
+{
+       unsigned int level = 0;
+       int ret = 0;
+
+       if (opp) {
+               if (!opp->level)
+                       return 0;
+
+               level = opp->level;
+       }
+
+       /* Request a new performance state through the device's PM domain. */
+       ret = dev_pm_domain_set_performance_state(dev, level);
+       if (ret)
+               dev_err(dev, "Failed to set performance state %u (%d)\n", level,
+                       ret);
+
+       return ret;
+}

Does it look okay now ?

-- 
viresh



More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list