| Message ID | 20210118005524.27787-2-digetx@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Delegated to: | viresh kumar |
| Headers | show |
| Series | OPP API fixes and improvements | expand |
On 18-01-21, 03:55, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: > Fix adding OPP entries in a wrong (opposite) order if OPP rate is > unavailable. The OPP comparison was erroneously skipped, thus OPPs > were left unsorted. > > Tested-by: Peter Geis <pgwipeout@gmail.com> > Tested-by: Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart@gmail.com> > Tested-by: Matt Merhar <mattmerhar@protonmail.com> > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com> > --- > drivers/opp/core.c | 10 ++++------ > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/opp/core.c b/drivers/opp/core.c > index dfc4208d3f87..48618ff3e99e 100644 > --- a/drivers/opp/core.c > +++ b/drivers/opp/core.c > @@ -1527,12 +1527,10 @@ int _opp_add(struct device *dev, struct dev_pm_opp *new_opp, > mutex_lock(&opp_table->lock); > head = &opp_table->opp_list; > > - if (likely(!rate_not_available)) { > - ret = _opp_is_duplicate(dev, new_opp, opp_table, &head); > - if (ret) { > - mutex_unlock(&opp_table->lock); > - return ret; > - } > + ret = _opp_is_duplicate(dev, new_opp, opp_table, &head); > + if (ret) { > + mutex_unlock(&opp_table->lock); > + return ret; > } > > list_add(&new_opp->node, head); Applied. Thanks. I am not sending it for 5.11-rc as there shouldn't be any users which are impacted because of this right now, right ?
18.01.2021 10:44, Viresh Kumar пишет: > On 18-01-21, 03:55, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: >> Fix adding OPP entries in a wrong (opposite) order if OPP rate is >> unavailable. The OPP comparison was erroneously skipped, thus OPPs >> were left unsorted. >> >> Tested-by: Peter Geis <pgwipeout@gmail.com> >> Tested-by: Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart@gmail.com> >> Tested-by: Matt Merhar <mattmerhar@protonmail.com> >> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com> >> --- >> drivers/opp/core.c | 10 ++++------ >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/opp/core.c b/drivers/opp/core.c >> index dfc4208d3f87..48618ff3e99e 100644 >> --- a/drivers/opp/core.c >> +++ b/drivers/opp/core.c >> @@ -1527,12 +1527,10 @@ int _opp_add(struct device *dev, struct dev_pm_opp *new_opp, >> mutex_lock(&opp_table->lock); >> head = &opp_table->opp_list; >> >> - if (likely(!rate_not_available)) { >> - ret = _opp_is_duplicate(dev, new_opp, opp_table, &head); >> - if (ret) { >> - mutex_unlock(&opp_table->lock); >> - return ret; >> - } >> + ret = _opp_is_duplicate(dev, new_opp, opp_table, &head); >> + if (ret) { >> + mutex_unlock(&opp_table->lock); >> + return ret; >> } >> >> list_add(&new_opp->node, head); > > Applied. Thanks. > > I am not sending it for 5.11-rc as there shouldn't be any users which > are impacted because of this right now, right ? > right
diff --git a/drivers/opp/core.c b/drivers/opp/core.c index dfc4208d3f87..48618ff3e99e 100644 --- a/drivers/opp/core.c +++ b/drivers/opp/core.c @@ -1527,12 +1527,10 @@ int _opp_add(struct device *dev, struct dev_pm_opp *new_opp, mutex_lock(&opp_table->lock); head = &opp_table->opp_list; - if (likely(!rate_not_available)) { - ret = _opp_is_duplicate(dev, new_opp, opp_table, &head); - if (ret) { - mutex_unlock(&opp_table->lock); - return ret; - } + ret = _opp_is_duplicate(dev, new_opp, opp_table, &head); + if (ret) { + mutex_unlock(&opp_table->lock); + return ret; } list_add(&new_opp->node, head);