Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965269AbcDYV4O (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Apr 2016 17:56:14 -0400 Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org ([198.145.29.96]:43576 "EHLO smtp.codeaurora.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965184AbcDYV4L (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Apr 2016 17:56:11 -0400 Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 14:56:08 -0700 From: Stephen Boyd To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Viresh Kumar , Rafael Wysocki , Lists linaro-kernel , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , Nishanth Menon , Arnd Bergmann , andrew@lunn.ch, gregory.clement@free-electrons.com, Jason Cooper , sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com, Thomas Petazzoni , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/10] cpufreq: dt: Identify cpu-sharing for platforms without operating-points-v2 Message-ID: <20160425215608.GB29990@codeaurora.org> References: <20160422222736.GU13149@codeaurora.org> <20160425093650.GG32183@vireshk-i7> <20160425214533.GA29990@codeaurora.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1359 Lines: 33 On 04/25, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:45 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > On 04/25, Viresh Kumar wrote: > >> On 22-04-16, 15:27, Stephen Boyd wrote: > >> > On 04/21, Viresh Kumar wrote: > >> > > @@ -167,14 +167,16 @@ static int cpufreq_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) > >> > > /* Get OPP-sharing information from "operating-points-v2" bindings */ > >> > > ret = dev_pm_opp_of_get_sharing_cpus(cpu_dev, policy->cpus); > > [..] > >> > > + if (dev_pm_opp_get_sharing_cpus(cpu_dev, policy->cpus)) > >> > > + fallback = true; > >> > > >> > I'm sort of lost, we make the same call twice here. Why would the > >> > return value change between the first time and the second? > >> > >> Two different APIs, which look similar :) > >> > >> The first one tries to find the sharing-cpus relation from DT, the > >> other one is for v1 bindings and finds it due to platform code > >> dev_pm_opp_set_sharing_cpus() call. > > > > Ah thanks. My eyes glossed over the "of" part. Sounds fine. > > So that would be an "ACK", right? Sure, I thought this was going for another round though. I had to go back and re-read the patch once more, but you can have my reviewed-by on this one too. -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project