Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.34 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.34;
MIME-Version: 1.0
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>
 <20231004050427.e3aalotrtpvld6rk@vireshk-i7>
In-Reply-To: <20231004050427.e3aalotrtpvld6rk@vireshk-i7>
From:   Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
Date:   Wed, 4 Oct 2023 11:06:53 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPDyKFqDKtCDVMFa=Man1EOEkXt8COg4cRcVStdKfUFOTG9BdA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/9] OPP: Extend support for the opp-level beyond required-opps
To:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 at 07:04, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> 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 ?

Yes, perfect! Thanks for helping out!

Kind regards
Uffe