Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 1 Sep 2020 15:15:08 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To:     Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>
Cc:     ulf.hansson@linaro.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>, Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>,
        nks@flawful.org, georgi.djakov@linaro.org,
        Stephan Gerhold <stephan@gerhold.net>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        'Linux Samsung SOC' <linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 2/2] cpufreq: dt: Refactor initialization to handle
 probe deferral properly
Message-ID: <20200901094508.4sgyfv3yj575wlzp@vireshk-i7>
References: <24ff92dd1b0ee1b802b45698520f2937418f8094.1598260050.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
 <f75c61f193f396608d592ae2a9938264d582c038.1598260050.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
 <CGME20200901085708eucas1p231ccacd7b41685ece92ee21e3b726f28@eucas1p2.samsung.com>
 <00a87bad-f750-b08c-4ccb-545b90dd87fc@samsung.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <00a87bad-f750-b08c-4ccb-545b90dd87fc@samsung.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716-391-311a52
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 01-09-20, 10:57, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> This patch landed in linux-next about a week ago. It introduces a 
> following warning on Samsung Exnyos3250 SoC:
> 
> cpu cpu1: _opp_is_duplicate: duplicate OPPs detected. Existing: freq: 
> 1000000000, volt: 1150000, enabled: 1. New: freq: 1000000000, volt: 
> 1150000, enabled: 1
> cpu cpu1: _opp_is_duplicate: duplicate OPPs detected. Existing: freq: 
> 900000000, volt: 1112500, enabled: 1. New: freq: 900000000, volt: 
> 1112500, enabled: 1
> cpu cpu1: _opp_is_duplicate: duplicate OPPs detected. Existing: freq: 
> 800000000, volt: 1075000, enabled: 1. New: freq: 800000000, volt: 
> 1075000, enabled: 1
> cpu cpu1: _opp_is_duplicate: duplicate OPPs detected. Existing: freq: 
> 700000000, volt: 1037500, enabled: 1. New: freq: 700000000, volt: 
> 1037500, enabled: 1
> cpu cpu1: _opp_is_duplicate: duplicate OPPs detected. Existing: freq: 
> 600000000, volt: 1000000, enabled: 1. New: freq: 600000000, volt: 
> 1000000, enabled: 1
> cpu cpu1: _opp_is_duplicate: duplicate OPPs detected. Existing: freq: 
> 500000000, volt: 962500, enabled: 1. New: freq: 500000000, volt: 962500, 
> enabled: 1
> cpu cpu1: _opp_is_duplicate: duplicate OPPs detected. Existing: freq: 
> 400000000, volt: 925000, enabled: 1. New: freq: 400000000, volt: 925000, 
> enabled: 1
> cpu cpu1: _opp_is_duplicate: duplicate OPPs detected. Existing: freq: 
> 300000000, volt: 887500, enabled: 1. New: freq: 300000000, volt: 887500, 
> enabled: 1
> cpu cpu1: _opp_is_duplicate: duplicate OPPs detected. Existing: freq: 
> 200000000, volt: 850000, enabled: 1. New: freq: 200000000, volt: 850000, 
> enabled: 1
> cpu cpu1: _opp_is_duplicate: duplicate OPPs detected. Existing: freq: 
> 100000000, volt: 850000, enabled: 1. New: freq: 100000000, volt: 850000, 
> enabled: 1
> 
> I've checked a bit and this is related to the fact that Exynos3250 SoC 
> use OPP-v1 table. Is this intentional? It is not a problem to convert it 
> to OPP-v2 and mark OPP table as shared, but this is a kind of a regression.

It took me 20 minutes for me to see "where has my patch gone" :(

I wrote a small patch for that to work without any issues, but not
sure how I missed or abandoned it. Anyway, here is the diff again and
I will send it out again once you confirm it fixes the issue. Can you
please also test your driver as a module with multiple insertion/removals ?

diff --git a/drivers/opp/of.c b/drivers/opp/of.c
index 5dac8bffd68c..e72753be7dc7 100644
--- a/drivers/opp/of.c
+++ b/drivers/opp/of.c
@@ -905,6 +905,16 @@ static int _of_add_opp_table_v1(struct device *dev, struct opp_table *opp_table)
        const __be32 *val;
        int nr, ret = 0;
 
+       mutex_lock(&opp_table->lock);
+       if (opp_table->parsed_static_opps) {
+               opp_table->parsed_static_opps++;
+               mutex_unlock(&opp_table->lock);
+               return 0;
+       }
+
+       opp_table->parsed_static_opps = 1;
+       mutex_unlock(&opp_table->lock);
+
        prop = of_find_property(dev->of_node, "operating-points", NULL);
        if (!prop)
                return -ENODEV;
@@ -921,10 +931,6 @@ static int _of_add_opp_table_v1(struct device *dev, struct opp_table *opp_table)
                return -EINVAL;
        }
 
-       mutex_lock(&opp_table->lock);
-       opp_table->parsed_static_opps = 1;
-       mutex_unlock(&opp_table->lock);
-
        val = prop->value;
        while (nr) {
                unsigned long freq = be32_to_cpup(val++) * 1000;

-- 
viresh