22.12.2020 12:12, Viresh Kumar пишет:
On 17-12-20, 21:06, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
Fix adding OPP entries in a wrong (opposite) order if OPP rate is unavailable. The OPP comparison is erroneously skipped if OPP rate is missing, thus OPPs are left unsorted.
Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko digetx@gmail.com
drivers/opp/core.c | 23 ++++++++++++----------- drivers/opp/opp.h | 2 +- 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/opp/core.c b/drivers/opp/core.c index 34f7e530d941..5c7f130a8de2 100644 --- a/drivers/opp/core.c +++ b/drivers/opp/core.c @@ -1531,9 +1531,10 @@ static bool _opp_supported_by_regulators(struct dev_pm_opp *opp, return true; }
-int _opp_compare_key(struct dev_pm_opp *opp1, struct dev_pm_opp *opp2) +int _opp_compare_key(struct dev_pm_opp *opp1, struct dev_pm_opp *opp2,
bool rate_not_available){
- if (opp1->rate != opp2->rate)
- if (!rate_not_available && opp1->rate != opp2->rate)
rate will be 0 for both the OPPs here if rate_not_available is true and so this change shouldn't be required.
The rate_not_available is negated in the condition. This change is required because both rates are 0 and then we should proceed to the levels comparison.
I guess it's not clear by looking at this patch, please see a full version of the function:
int _opp_compare_key(struct dev_pm_opp *opp1, struct dev_pm_opp *opp2, bool rate_not_available) { if (!rate_not_available && opp1->rate != opp2->rate) return opp1->rate < opp2->rate ? -1 : 1; if (opp1->bandwidth && opp2->bandwidth && opp1->bandwidth[0].peak != opp2->bandwidth[0].peak) return opp1->bandwidth[0].peak < opp2->bandwidth[0].peak ? -1 : 1; if (opp1->level != opp2->level) return opp1->level < opp2->level ? -1 : 1; return 0; }
Perhaps we could check whether opp1->rate=0, like it's done for the opp1->bandwidth. I'll consider this variant for v3, thanks.