On 8/18/2025 2:25 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 18-08-25, 13:52, Krishna Chaitanya Chundru wrote:
+static bool _compare_opp_key_exact(struct dev_pm_opp **opp, struct dev_pm_opp *temp_opp,
+ struct dev_pm_opp_key opp_key, struct dev_pm_opp_key key)
+{
+ bool freq_match = (opp_key.freq == 0 || key.freq == 0 || opp_key.freq == key.freq);
Why !opp_key.freq is okay ? If the user has provided a freq value,
then it must match. Isn't it ?
ok I will fix this in next patch.
+ bool level_match = (opp_key.level == OPP_LEVEL_UNSET ||
+ key.level == OPP_LEVEL_UNSET || opp_key.level == key.level);
We should compare bw too I guess in the same routine.
ok I will add bw similar to level,
+ if (freq_match && level_match) {
+ *opp = temp_opp;
+ return true;
+ }
+
+ return false;
+}
+/**
+ * dev_pm_opp_find_freq_level_exact() - Search for an exact frequency and level
Instead dev_pm_opp_find_key_exact() and let the user pass the key
struct itself.
ack
+struct dev_pm_opp *dev_pm_opp_find_freq_level_exact(struct device *dev,
+ unsigned long freq,
+ unsigned int level,
+ bool available)
+{
+ struct opp_table *opp_table __free(put_opp_table);
The constructor here must be real, i.e. initialize opp_table here
itself. This is well documented in cleanup.h. Yes there are examples
like this in the OPP core which are required to be fixed too.
ack.
- Krishna Chaitanya.
