Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 23 Jun 2015 13:33:09 +0530 | From | Viresh Kumar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 7/8] cpufreq: st: Provide runtime initialised driver for ST's platforms |
| |
On 23-06-15, 08:16, Lee Jones wrote: > Thanks for your timely review Viresh.
Your welcome Lee :)
> On Tue, 23 Jun 2015, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > On 22-06-15, 16:43, Lee Jones wrote: > > > +config ARM_ST_CPUFREQ > > > + bool "ST CPUFreq support" > > > > Isn't using ST just too generic? There are multiple SoCs ST has been > > involved with, I have worked on a completely different series. > > Probably a more relative string is required here, like stih407 ? > > This is ST's only CPUFreq implementation and is pretty board > agnostic. This particular driver only currently supports the STiH407 > family, but internally it supports some others too. I'll have a chat > and see if we can make it more specific somehow.
So, SPEAr is also from ST. And it already have a driver for itself.
> > > + if (!ddata->dvfs_tab_count) { > > > + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "No suitable AVS table found\n"); > > > > Why is this an error? I thought in this case you will go ahead with > > the normal OPP-table. > > I've written it so it's an error within this function, as it makes the > function fail, but is downgraded by the caller to a warning and > gracefully bypassed to still allow frequency scaling.
Not that, I was asking about the print. I thought we will still try to find OPP from the CPU node and a warning or a error might not be the right choice. You can surely add a debug print. Currently you are doing a dev_err() here, followed by a dev_warn() I think..
> > So you have added new OPPs here, but cpufreq-dt will try to add old > > OPPs. You must be getting lots of warnings ? > > Yes, we recieve the 'duplicate OPPs detected' warning, but there is > nothing we can do about that.
:)
OPP-v2 will get that solved too..
> > > + if (ddata->substrate < 0) > > > + goto set_default; > > > > Maybe: > > > > if (ddata->substrate >= 0) > > return; > > 0 is a valid substrate value.
I had >= in the comparison. Wasn't that right? And I was just suggesting that a single return can be used instead of
if (xyz) goto set_default; return;
-- viresh
| |