Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 smtp.codeaurora.org 7C85660314
From:   <ilialin@codeaurora.org>
To:     "'Russell King - ARM Linux'" <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
Cc:     <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>, <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-soc@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-clk@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
References: <1526555955-29960-11-git-send-email-ilialin@codeaurora.org> <1526898690-4018-1-git-send-email-ilialin@codeaurora.org> <20180521105428.GM17671@n2100.armlinux.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20180521105428.GM17671@n2100.armlinux.org.uk>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] cpufreq: Add Kryo CPU scaling driver
Date:   Mon, 21 May 2018 14:05:41 +0300
Message-ID: <000b01d3f0f3$aa961cc0$ffc25640$@codeaurora.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Thread-Index: AQF4oTaoNxz6XIk2qh8MCLQUCquwggKwu+X3AuWN43ekw/JeUA==
Content-Language: en-us
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

You are right.
cpu_dev_silver != cpu_dev_gold, and I found this with my tests as well.
Thank you.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
> Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 13:54
> To: Ilia Lin <ilialin@codeaurora.org>
> Cc: viresh.kumar@linaro.org; devicetree@vger.kernel.org; linux-
> pm@vger.kernel.org; linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org; linux-
> kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-soc@vger.kernel.org; linux-
> clk@vger.kernel.org; linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Add Kryo CPU scaling driver
> 
> On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 01:31:30PM +0300, Ilia Lin wrote:
> > +#define SILVER_LEAD	0
> > +#define GOLD_LEAD	2
> 
> Okay, two different values here, but "GOLD_LEAD" appears unused.
> 
> > +	cpu_dev_silver = get_cpu_device(SILVER_LEAD);
> > +	if (NULL == cpu_dev_silver)
> > +		return -ENODEV;
> > +
> > +	cpu_dev_gold = get_cpu_device(SILVER_LEAD);
> > +	if (NULL == cpu_dev_gold)
> > +		return -ENODEV;
> 
> get_cpu_device() takes the logical CPU number.  So the above gets CPU 0
> each time, and so cpu_dev_silver == cpu_dev_gold here.  So what's the
> point of the second get_cpu_device() ?  If it's supposed to be:
> 
> 	cpu_dev_gold = get_cpu_device(GOLD_LEAD);
> 
> That would get CPU 2, but in terms of these defines, it doesn't make that
> much sense.  What exactly does "silver lead" and "gold lead" refer to in
these
> definitions?
> 
> > +	opp_silver =
> dev_pm_opp_set_supported_hw(cpu_dev_silver,&versions,1);
> > +	if (IS_ERR(opp_silver)) {
> > +		dev_err(cpu_dev_silver, "Failed to set supported
> hardware\n");
> > +		ret = PTR_ERR(opp_silver);
> > +		goto free_np;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	opp_gold =
> dev_pm_opp_set_supported_hw(cpu_dev_gold,&versions,1);
> > +	if (IS_ERR(opp_gold)) {
> > +		dev_err(cpu_dev_gold, "Failed to set supported
> hardware\n");
> > +		ret = PTR_ERR(opp_gold);
> > +		goto free_opp_silver;
> > +	}
> 
> Given that cpu_dev_silver == cpu_dev_gold, doesn't the second call to
> dev_pm_opp_set_supported_hw() always fail, as opp_table-
> >supported_hw will be set by the first call?
> 
> To me, this driver looks completely useless as it will always fail to
initialise,
> and I question whether this code has even been runtime tested.
> 
> --
> RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
> FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 8.8Mbps down 630kbps
> up According to speedtest.net: 8.21Mbps down 510kbps up