[PATCH v2 19/48] opp: Fix adding OPP entries in a wrong order if rate is unavailable

[Dmitry Osipenko]

24.12.2020 09:28, Viresh Kumar пишет:
> On 23-12-20, 23:36, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>> 23.12.2020 07:34, Viresh Kumar пишет:
>>> On 22-12-20, 22:19, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>>>> 22.12.2020 12:12, Viresh Kumar пишет:
>>>>> rate will be 0 for both the OPPs here if rate_not_available is true and so this
>>>>> change shouldn't be required.
>>>>
>>>> The rate_not_available is negated in the condition. This change is
>>>> required because both rates are 0 and then we should proceed to the
>>>> levels comparison.
>>>
>>> Won't that happen without this patch ?
>>
>> No
> 
> This is how the code looks like currently:
> 
> int _opp_compare_key(struct dev_pm_opp *opp1, struct dev_pm_opp *opp2)
> {
> 	if (opp1->rate != opp2->rate)
> 		return opp1->rate < opp2->rate ? -1 : 1;
> 	if (opp1->bandwidth && opp2->bandwidth &&
> 	    opp1->bandwidth[0].peak != opp2->bandwidth[0].peak)
> 		return opp1->bandwidth[0].peak < opp2->bandwidth[0].peak ? -1 : 1;
> 	if (opp1->level != opp2->level)
> 		return opp1->level < opp2->level ? -1 : 1;
> 	return 0;
> }
> 
> Lets consider the case you are focussing on, where rate is 0 for both the OPPs,
> bandwidth isn't there and we want to run the level comparison here.
> 
> Since both the rates are 0, (opp1->rate != opp2->rate) will fail and so we will
> move to bandwidth check which will fail too. And so we will get to the level
> comparison.
> 
> What am I missing here ? I am sure there is something for sure as you won't have
> missed this..
> 

Ah, you're right. It was me who was missing something as I see now,
after taking a closer look and trying to implement yours suggestion, my
bad. I'll improve this patch in the next revision, thanks!