On 23-07-19, 17:26, Saravana Kannan wrote: > On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 3:04 AM Viresh Kumar <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 17-07-19, 15:23, Saravana Kannan wrote: > > > /* > > > @@ -56,13 +56,20 @@ static int devfreq_passive_get_target_freq(struct > > > devfreq *devfreq, > > > * list of parent device. Because in this case, *freq is temporary > > > * value which is decided by ondemand governor. > > > */ > > > - opp = devfreq_recommended_opp(parent_devfreq->dev.parent, freq, 0); > > > - if (IS_ERR(opp)) { > > > - ret = PTR_ERR(opp); > > > + p_opp = devfreq_recommended_opp(parent_devfreq->dev.parent, freq, > > > 0); > > > + if (IS_ERR(p_opp)) { > > > + ret = PTR_ERR(p_opp); > > > goto out; > > > } > > > > > > - dev_pm_opp_put(opp); > > > + if (devfreq->opp_table && parent_devfreq->opp_table) > > > + opp = dev_pm_opp_xlate_opp(parent_devfreq->opp_table, > > > + devfreq->opp_table, p_opp); > > > > you put p_opp right here.
What about this comment ? > > > > Also shouldn't you try to get p_opp under the above if block only? As > > that is the only user of it ? > > No, p_opp (used to be called opp) was used even before my changes. If > there's no required-opps mapping this falls back to assuming the slave > device OPP to pick should be the same index as the master device's > opp. > > So I believe this patch is correct as-is. Right. -- viresh
