Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.37 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.37;
Date:   Wed, 4 Oct 2023 10:34:27 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To:     Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
Cc:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
        Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com>,
        Viresh Kumar <vireshk@kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>,
        Nikunj Kela <nkela@quicinc.com>,
        Prasad Sodagudi <psodagud@quicinc.com>,
        Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@foss.st.com>,
        linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/9] OPP: Extend support for the opp-level beyond
 required-opps
Message-ID: <20231004050427.e3aalotrtpvld6rk@vireshk-i7>
References: <20230925131715.138411-1-ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
 <20230925131715.138411-7-ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
 <CAPDyKFo+XCEtTSNqtA1SeajWo4tuRroA4GrRegta5TsqSGd4eQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20231003082322.cmok766jxzftsgrg@vireshk-i7>
 <CAPDyKForAJfdqqpkAP0vwZFAtSAtGMyqChLVr96v7PDWRj2qzw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAPDyKForAJfdqqpkAP0vwZFAtSAtGMyqChLVr96v7PDWRj2qzw@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On 03-10-23, 14:36, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> Can you please explain further on this. Rafael has acked those
> patches, so it should be perfectly fine for you to pick them via your
> tree too. There is no need to defer them.

Ahh, then it is fine.

> > I will then push out a branch and you can
> > rebase your patches on top of it ? And then probably Sudeep or someone else can
> > apply everything ?
> 
> Or are you suggesting to just take one of the patches from my series,
> and then I will re-base everything on top?
> 
> Just trying to understand the way forward. :-)

Applied patches 1-6/9 and the fixed routine looks like this now:

+static int _set_opp_level(struct device *dev, struct opp_table *opp_table,
+                         struct dev_pm_opp *opp)
+{
+       unsigned int level = 0;
+       int ret = 0;
+
+       if (opp) {
+               if (!opp->level)
+                       return 0;
+
+               level = opp->level;
+       }
+
+       /* Request a new performance state through the device's PM domain. */
+       ret = dev_pm_domain_set_performance_state(dev, level);
+       if (ret)
+               dev_err(dev, "Failed to set performance state %u (%d)\n", level,
+                       ret);
+
+       return ret;
+}

Does it look okay now ?

-- 
viresh