Re: [PATCH 4/7] soc: qcom: rpmpd: Add support for get/set performance state

Rajendra Nayak
2018-03-16T05:52:12Z

On 03/16/2018 10:05 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 16-03-18, 09:38, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
>> With genpd now expecting powerdomain drivers supporting performance
>> state to support get/set performance state callbacks, add support for it
>> in the rpmpd driver.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@codeaurora.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
>> ---
>> drivers/soc/qcom/rpmpd.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 42 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmpd.c b/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmpd.c
>> index c8754d867c33..4058c5b450c6 100644
>> --- a/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmpd.c
>> +++ b/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmpd.c
>> @@ -14,6 +14,7 @@
>> #include <linux/of.h>
>> #include <linux/of_device.h>
>> #include <linux/platform_device.h>
>> +#include <linux/pm_opp.h>
>> #include <linux/soc/qcom/smd-rpm.h>
>>
>> #include <dt-bindings/mfd/qcom-rpm.h>
>> @@ -29,6 +30,8 @@
>> #define KEY_ENABLE 0x6e657773 /* swen */
>> #define KEY_FLOOR_CORNER 0x636676 /* vfc */
>>
>> +#define MAX_RPMPD_STATE 6
>> +
>> #define DEFINE_RPMPD_CORN_SMPA(_platform, _name, _active, r_id) \
>> static struct rpmpd _platform##_##_active; \
>> static struct rpmpd _platform##_##_name = { \
>> @@ -222,6 +225,43 @@ static int rpmpd_power_off(struct generic_pm_domain *domain)
>> return ret;
>> }
>>
>> +static int rpmpd_set_performance(struct generic_pm_domain *domain,
>> + unsigned int state)
>> +{
>> + int ret = 0;
>> + struct rpmpd *pd = domain_to_rpmpd(domain);
>> +
>> + mutex_lock(&rpmpd_lock);
>> +
>> + if (state > MAX_RPMPD_STATE)
>> + goto out;
>> +
>> + pd->corner = state;
>> +
>> + if (!pd->enabled && (pd->key != KEY_FLOOR_CORNER))
>> + goto out;
>> +
>> + ret = rpmpd_aggregate_corner(pd);
>> +
>> +out:
>> + mutex_unlock(&rpmpd_lock);
>> +
>> + return ret;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static unsigned int rpmpd_get_performance(struct generic_pm_domain *genpd,
>> + struct dev_pm_opp *opp)
>> +{
>> + struct device_node *np;
>> + unsigned int corner = 0;
>> +
>> + np = dev_pm_opp_get_of_node(opp);
>> + of_property_read_u32(np, "qcom,level", &corner);
>
> Don't we want to error out or do something else in case of an error ?

yes, I missed the error checks, will add.

--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation