Re: [PATCH 2/2] opp: Don't create an OPP table from dev_pm_opp_get_opp_table()

[Viresh Kumar]

On 06-11-20, 16:18, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> 06.11.2020 09:24, Viresh Kumar пишет:
> > It has been found that some users (like cpufreq-dt and others on LKML)
> > have abused the helper dev_pm_opp_get_opp_table() to create the OPP
> > table instead of just finding it, which is the wrong thing to do. This
> > routine was meant for OPP core's internal working and exposed the whole
> > functionality by mistake.
> > 
> > Change the scope of dev_pm_opp_get_opp_table() to only finding the
> > table. The internal helpers _opp_get_opp_table*() are thus renamed to
> > _add_opp_table*(), dev_pm_opp_get_opp_table_indexed() is removed (as we
> > don't need the index field for finding the OPP table) and so the only
> > user, genpd, is updated.
> > 
> > Note that the prototype of _add_opp_table() was already left in opp.h by
> > mistake when it was removed earlier and so we weren't required to add it
> > now.
> 
> Hello Viresh,
> 
> It looks like this is not an entirely correct change because previously
> it was possible to get an empty opp_table in order to use it for the
> dev_pm_opp_set_rate(), which would fall back to clk_set_rate if table is
> empty.
> 
> Now it's not possible to get an empty table and
> dev_pm_opp_of_add_table() would error out if OPPs are missing in a
> device-tree. Hence it's not possible to implement a fall back without
> abusing opp_set_regulators() or opp_set_supported_hw() for getting the
> empty table. Or am I missing something?

For that case you were always required to call
dev_pm_opp_set_clkname(), otherwise how would the OPP core know which
clock to set ? And the same shall work now as well.

-- 
viresh