| Message ID | 1d7c97524b9e1fbc60271d9c246c5461ca8a106c.1598594714.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Delegated to: | viresh kumar |
| Headers | show |
| Series | opp: Unconditionally call dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table() | expand |
On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 at 08:08, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote: > > dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table() doesn't report any errors when it fails to > find the OPP table with error -ENODEV (i.e. OPP table not present for > the device). And we can call dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table() > unconditionally here. > > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> Replaced v1 with v2 on my next branch, thanks! Just to be sure, this patch doesn't depend on any changes for the opp core that are queued for v5.10? Kind regards Uffe > > --- > V2: > - Compare with -ENODEV only for failures. > - Create new label to put clkname. > --- > drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c | 14 +++++--------- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c > index 5a33389037cd..f7beaec6412e 100644 > --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c > +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c > @@ -263,7 +263,6 @@ struct sdhci_msm_host { > unsigned long clk_rate; > struct mmc_host *mmc; > struct opp_table *opp_table; > - bool has_opp_table; > bool use_14lpp_dll_reset; > bool tuning_done; > bool calibration_done; > @@ -2285,11 +2284,9 @@ static int sdhci_msm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > /* OPP table is optional */ > ret = dev_pm_opp_of_add_table(&pdev->dev); > - if (!ret) { > - msm_host->has_opp_table = true; > - } else if (ret != -ENODEV) { > + if (ret && ret != -ENODEV) { > dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Invalid OPP table in Device tree\n"); > - goto opp_cleanup; > + goto opp_put_clkname; > } > > /* Vote for maximum clock rate for maximum performance */ > @@ -2453,8 +2450,8 @@ static int sdhci_msm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > clk_bulk_disable_unprepare(ARRAY_SIZE(msm_host->bulk_clks), > msm_host->bulk_clks); > opp_cleanup: > - if (msm_host->has_opp_table) > - dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table(&pdev->dev); > + dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table(&pdev->dev); > +opp_put_clkname: > dev_pm_opp_put_clkname(msm_host->opp_table); > bus_clk_disable: > if (!IS_ERR(msm_host->bus_clk)) > @@ -2474,8 +2471,7 @@ static int sdhci_msm_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) > > sdhci_remove_host(host, dead); > > - if (msm_host->has_opp_table) > - dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table(&pdev->dev); > + dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table(&pdev->dev); > dev_pm_opp_put_clkname(msm_host->opp_table); > pm_runtime_get_sync(&pdev->dev); > pm_runtime_disable(&pdev->dev); > -- > 2.25.0.rc1.19.g042ed3e048af >
Hi, On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 1:44 AM Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> wrote: > > On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 at 08:08, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table() doesn't report any errors when it fails to > > find the OPP table with error -ENODEV (i.e. OPP table not present for > > the device). And we can call dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table() > > unconditionally here. > > > > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> > > Replaced v1 with v2 on my next branch, thanks! Actually, I don't see it on there yet, but at least the old broken v1 isn't there anymore. ;-) I picked v2 and tried it on my sc7180-based device (which does have OPP tables). It worked fine. Thus: Tested-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> I looked at the code and it looks right to me. Thus: Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> > Just to be sure, this patch doesn't depend on any changes for the opp > core that are queued for v5.10? Running atop mmc-next, I see the check for -ENODEV, so I'm gonna assume that the required change is there. $ git grep -A10 'void _dev_pm_opp_find_and_remove_table' -- drivers/opp/core.c drivers/opp/core.c:void _dev_pm_opp_find_and_remove_table(struct device *dev) drivers/opp/core.c-{ drivers/opp/core.c- struct opp_table *opp_table; drivers/opp/core.c- drivers/opp/core.c- /* Check for existing table for 'dev' */ drivers/opp/core.c- opp_table = _find_opp_table(dev); drivers/opp/core.c- if (IS_ERR(opp_table)) { drivers/opp/core.c- int error = PTR_ERR(opp_table); drivers/opp/core.c- drivers/opp/core.c- if (error != -ENODEV) drivers/opp/core.c- WARN(1, "%s: opp_table: %d\n",
On 28-08-20, 10:43, Ulf Hansson wrote: > On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 at 08:08, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table() doesn't report any errors when it fails to > > find the OPP table with error -ENODEV (i.e. OPP table not present for > > the device). And we can call dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table() > > unconditionally here. > > > > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> > > Replaced v1 with v2 on my next branch, thanks! > > Just to be sure, this patch doesn't depend on any changes for the opp > core that are queued for v5.10? No it doesn't.
On 28-08-20, 10:43, Ulf Hansson wrote: > On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 at 08:08, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table() doesn't report any errors when it fails to > > find the OPP table with error -ENODEV (i.e. OPP table not present for > > the device). And we can call dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table() > > unconditionally here. > > > > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> > > Replaced v1 with v2 on my next branch, thanks! > > Just to be sure, this patch doesn't depend on any changes for the opp > core that are queued for v5.10? The recent crashes reported by Anders and Naresh were related to a OPP core bug, for which I have just sent the fix here: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/922ff0759a16299e24cacfc981ac07914d8f1826.1598865786.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org/ This is already tested by Naresh now and finally everything works as expected. I am going to get this fix merged in 5.9-rc4, but we do have a dependency now with that fix. What's the best way to handle this stuff now ? The easiest IMO would be for me to send these patches through the OPP tree, otherwise people need to carry this and the OPP fix (for which I can provide the branch/tag).
On Mon, 31 Aug 2020 at 12:45, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote: > > On 28-08-20, 10:43, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 at 08:08, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table() doesn't report any errors when it fails to > > > find the OPP table with error -ENODEV (i.e. OPP table not present for > > > the device). And we can call dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table() > > > unconditionally here. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> > > > > Replaced v1 with v2 on my next branch, thanks! > > > > Just to be sure, this patch doesn't depend on any changes for the opp > > core that are queued for v5.10? > > The recent crashes reported by Anders and Naresh were related to a OPP > core bug, for which I have just sent the fix here: > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/922ff0759a16299e24cacfc981ac07914d8f1826.1598865786.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org/ > > This is already tested by Naresh now and finally everything works as > expected. > > I am going to get this fix merged in 5.9-rc4, but we do have a > dependency now with that fix. > > What's the best way to handle this stuff now ? The easiest IMO would > be for me to send these patches through the OPP tree, otherwise people > need to carry this and the OPP fix (for which I can provide the > branch/tag). No need for a tag/branch to be shared. Instead I am simply going to defer to pick up any related changes for mmc, until I can rebase my tree on an rc[n] that contains your fix. When that is possible, please re-post the mmc patches. Kind regards Uffe
On 31-08-20, 12:57, Ulf Hansson wrote: > On Mon, 31 Aug 2020 at 12:45, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > On 28-08-20, 10:43, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > > On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 at 08:08, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table() doesn't report any errors when it fails to > > > > find the OPP table with error -ENODEV (i.e. OPP table not present for > > > > the device). And we can call dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table() > > > > unconditionally here. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> > > > > > > Replaced v1 with v2 on my next branch, thanks! > > > > > > Just to be sure, this patch doesn't depend on any changes for the opp > > > core that are queued for v5.10? > > > > The recent crashes reported by Anders and Naresh were related to a OPP > > core bug, for which I have just sent the fix here: > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/922ff0759a16299e24cacfc981ac07914d8f1826.1598865786.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org/ > > > > This is already tested by Naresh now and finally everything works as > > expected. > > > > I am going to get this fix merged in 5.9-rc4, but we do have a > > dependency now with that fix. > > > > What's the best way to handle this stuff now ? The easiest IMO would > > be for me to send these patches through the OPP tree, otherwise people > > need to carry this and the OPP fix (for which I can provide the > > branch/tag). > > No need for a tag/branch to be shared. Instead I am simply going to > defer to pick up any related changes for mmc, until I can rebase my > tree on an rc[n] that contains your fix. > > When that is possible, please re-post the mmc patches. The dependency patch got merged in 5.9-rc4. Do you still want me to resend this patch or you can apply it directly from here ?
On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 13:07, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote: > > On 31-08-20, 12:57, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > On Mon, 31 Aug 2020 at 12:45, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > On 28-08-20, 10:43, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > > > On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 at 08:08, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table() doesn't report any errors when it fails to > > > > > find the OPP table with error -ENODEV (i.e. OPP table not present for > > > > > the device). And we can call dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table() > > > > > unconditionally here. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> > > > > > > > > Replaced v1 with v2 on my next branch, thanks! > > > > > > > > Just to be sure, this patch doesn't depend on any changes for the opp > > > > core that are queued for v5.10? > > > > > > The recent crashes reported by Anders and Naresh were related to a OPP > > > core bug, for which I have just sent the fix here: > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/922ff0759a16299e24cacfc981ac07914d8f1826.1598865786.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org/ > > > > > > This is already tested by Naresh now and finally everything works as > > > expected. > > > > > > I am going to get this fix merged in 5.9-rc4, but we do have a > > > dependency now with that fix. > > > > > > What's the best way to handle this stuff now ? The easiest IMO would > > > be for me to send these patches through the OPP tree, otherwise people > > > need to carry this and the OPP fix (for which I can provide the > > > branch/tag). > > > > No need for a tag/branch to be shared. Instead I am simply going to > > defer to pick up any related changes for mmc, until I can rebase my > > tree on an rc[n] that contains your fix. > > > > When that is possible, please re-post the mmc patches. > > The dependency patch got merged in 5.9-rc4. Do you still want me to > resend this patch or you can apply it directly from here ? Please re-submit, then I will pick it from the patchtracker. Kind regards Uffe
diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c index 5a33389037cd..f7beaec6412e 100644 --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c @@ -263,7 +263,6 @@ struct sdhci_msm_host { unsigned long clk_rate; struct mmc_host *mmc; struct opp_table *opp_table; - bool has_opp_table; bool use_14lpp_dll_reset; bool tuning_done; bool calibration_done; @@ -2285,11 +2284,9 @@ static int sdhci_msm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) /* OPP table is optional */ ret = dev_pm_opp_of_add_table(&pdev->dev); - if (!ret) { - msm_host->has_opp_table = true; - } else if (ret != -ENODEV) { + if (ret && ret != -ENODEV) { dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Invalid OPP table in Device tree\n"); - goto opp_cleanup; + goto opp_put_clkname; } /* Vote for maximum clock rate for maximum performance */ @@ -2453,8 +2450,8 @@ static int sdhci_msm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) clk_bulk_disable_unprepare(ARRAY_SIZE(msm_host->bulk_clks), msm_host->bulk_clks); opp_cleanup: - if (msm_host->has_opp_table) - dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table(&pdev->dev); + dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table(&pdev->dev); +opp_put_clkname: dev_pm_opp_put_clkname(msm_host->opp_table); bus_clk_disable: if (!IS_ERR(msm_host->bus_clk)) @@ -2474,8 +2471,7 @@ static int sdhci_msm_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) sdhci_remove_host(host, dead); - if (msm_host->has_opp_table) - dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table(&pdev->dev); + dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table(&pdev->dev); dev_pm_opp_put_clkname(msm_host->opp_table); pm_runtime_get_sync(&pdev->dev); pm_runtime_disable(&pdev->dev);
dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table() doesn't report any errors when it fails to find the OPP table with error -ENODEV (i.e. OPP table not present for the device). And we can call dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table() unconditionally here. Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> --- V2: - Compare with -ENODEV only for failures. - Create new label to put clkname. --- drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c | 14 +++++--------- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)