| Message ID | 20250502031018.1292-2-quic_ptalari@quicinc.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [v3,1/9] opp: add new helper API dev_pm_opp_set_level() | expand |
Hi Viresh On 5/2/2025 1:44 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 02-05-25, 13:31, Praveen Talari wrote: >> Shall i keep commit as you suggested with your SIB. > I already applied it to my tree. You can drop it from your series now. now i can push V4 right and will not face errors on my series w.r.t this API. Thanks, Praveen >
On Fri, 2 May 2025 at 19:32, Praveen Talari <quic_ptalari@quicinc.com> wrote: > now i can push V4 right and will not face errors on my series w.r.t this > API. Not fully sure what you meant, but you can send a V4 of the series, without the first patch. Please mention it as an dependency in the cover letter and that it is applied in the OPP tree's linux-next branch. The one who applies your series needs to apply the series over the commit in my branch to avoid breakage (if your series is going in 6.16-rc1). -- Viresh
Hi On 5/2/2025 7:41 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On Fri, 2 May 2025 at 19:32, Praveen Talari <quic_ptalari@quicinc.com> wrote: >> now i can push V4 right and will not face errors on my series w.r.t this >> API. > Not fully sure what you meant, but you can send a V4 of the series, i mean one of the patch from series is depended on patch-1, that i have removed from series now so will i face any issue like kernel bot Thanks, Praveen Talari > without the first patch. Please mention it as an dependency in the > cover letter and that it is applied in the OPP tree's linux-next branch. > > The one who applies your series needs to apply the series over the commit > in my branch to avoid breakage (if your series is going in 6.16-rc1). > > -- > Viresh
diff --git a/include/linux/pm_opp.h b/include/linux/pm_opp.h index e7b5c602c92f..31ed8a7b554e 100644 --- a/include/linux/pm_opp.h +++ b/include/linux/pm_opp.h @@ -197,6 +197,28 @@ int dev_pm_opp_get_sharing_cpus(struct device *cpu_dev, struct cpumask *cpumask) void dev_pm_opp_remove_table(struct device *dev); void dev_pm_opp_cpumask_remove_table(const struct cpumask *cpumask); int dev_pm_opp_sync_regulators(struct device *dev); + +/* + * dev_pm_opp_set_level() - Configure device for a level + * @dev: device for which we do this operation + * @level: level to set to + * + * Return: 0 on success, a non-zero value if there is an error otherwise. + */ +static inline int dev_pm_opp_set_level(struct device *dev, unsigned int level) +{ + struct dev_pm_opp *opp = dev_pm_opp_find_level_exact(dev, level); + int ret; + + if (IS_ERR(opp)) + return IS_ERR(opp); + + ret = dev_pm_opp_set_opp(dev, opp); + dev_pm_opp_put(opp); + + return ret; +} + #else static inline struct opp_table *dev_pm_opp_get_opp_table(struct device *dev) { @@ -461,6 +483,11 @@ static inline int dev_pm_opp_sync_regulators(struct device *dev) return -EOPNOTSUPP; } +static inline int dev_pm_opp_set_level(struct device *dev, unsigned int level) +{ + return -EOPNOTSUPP; +} + #endif /* CONFIG_PM_OPP */ #if defined(CONFIG_CPU_FREQ) && defined(CONFIG_PM_OPP)
To configure a device to a specific performance level, consumer drivers currently need to determine the OPP based on the exact level and then set it, resulting in code duplication across drivers. The new helper API, dev_pm_opp_set_level(), addresses this issue by providing a streamlined method for consumer drivers to find and set the OPP based on the desired performance level, thereby eliminating redundancy. Signed-off-by: Praveen Talari <quic_ptalari@quicinc.com> v2 -> v3 - moved function defination to pm_opp.h from core.c with inline - updated return value with IS_ERR(opp) v1 -> v2 - reorder sequence of tags in commit text --- include/linux/pm_opp.h | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+)