Re: [PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: brcmstb-avs-cpufreq: prefer SCMI cpufreq if supported

From: Markus Mayer
Date: Thu Apr 19 2018 - 18:10:55 EST


On 18 April 2018 at 09:37, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 04/18/2018 08:56 AM, Markus Mayer wrote:
>> From: Jim Quinlan <jim2101024@xxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> If the SCMI cpufreq driver is supported, we bail, so that the new
>> approach can be used.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jim Quinlan <jim2101024@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Markus Mayer <mmayer@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/cpufreq/brcmstb-avs-cpufreq.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/brcmstb-avs-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/brcmstb-avs-cpufreq.c
>> index b07559b9ed99..b4861a730162 100644
>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/brcmstb-avs-cpufreq.c
>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/brcmstb-avs-cpufreq.c
>> @@ -164,6 +164,8 @@
>> #define BRCM_AVS_CPU_INTR "brcm,avs-cpu-l2-intr"
>> #define BRCM_AVS_HOST_INTR "sw_intr"
>>
>> +#define ARM_SCMI_COMPAT "arm,scmi"
>> +
>> struct pmap {
>> unsigned int mode;
>> unsigned int p1;
>> @@ -511,6 +513,20 @@ static int brcm_avs_prepare_init(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> struct device *dev;
>> int host_irq, ret;
>>
>> + /*
>> + * If the SCMI cpufreq driver is supported, we bail, so that the more
>> + * modern approach can be used.
>> + */
>> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM_SCMI_PROTOCOL)) {
>> + struct device_node *np;
>> +
>> + np = of_find_compatible_node(NULL, NULL, ARM_SCMI_COMPAT);
>> + if (np) {
>> + of_node_put(np);
>> + return -ENXIO;
>> + }
>
> We would probably want to make sure that the node is also enabled (that
> is, does not have a status = "disabled" property) otherwise the check
> can be defeated. Something like:
>
> if (np && of_device_is_available(np))

Would we want something like this instead?

if (np) {
bool bail_early =
(of_device_is_available(np) > 0);

of_node_put(np);
if (bail_early)
return -ENXIO;
}

To ensure of_node_put() is called?

> should be good for that.
>
> Thanks!
> --
> Florian