On Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 12:09:53PM +0000, Quentin Perret wrote:

Hi Sudeep,

On Friday 01 Feb 2019 at 12:04:53 (+0000), Sudeep Holla wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 09:30:57AM +0000, Quentin Perret wrote:

quoted

+void dev_pm_opp_of_register_em(struct cpumask *cpus, int nr_opp)
+{
+	struct em_data_callback em_cb = EM_DATA_CB(_get_cpu_power);
+	int ret, cpu = cpumask_first(cpus);
+	struct device *cpu_dev;
+	struct device_node *np;
+	u32 cap;
+
+	cpu_dev = get_cpu_device(cpu);
+	if (!cpu_dev)
+		return;
+
+	np = of_node_get(cpu_dev->of_node);
+	if (!np)
+		return;
+

Forgot earlier, you can use of_cpu_device_node_get to combine the above 2.

quoted

Does it make sense to add the check for OPP count here. You need not pass
that as parameter. Just makes one less thing to check in new drivers adding
this support. Thoughts ?

Yeah Matthias had the same suggestion. I don't mind moving it here TBH.
It's just that some users already do the opp count before calling this
function, so I figured I could as well use that data instead of counting
again.

Indeed, I was under same opinion after seeing in 2 patches and then 3rd
made me think why not. Also since you fetch cpu_dev already there, it
should be fine.

But yeah, that's one less thing to worry about on the driver side so
I'll move the OPP count in there for v4 and we'll see if people ask me
to move it out to optimize things ;-)

Yes, but I will leave it to Viresh's taste :)

--
Regards,
Sudeep

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel