It is not obvious why we can skip error checking of
dev_pm_opp_find_freq_exact() API. Add a comment explaining it.

Signed-off-by: Akhil P Oommen <akhilpo@oss.qualcomm.com>
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_gmu.c | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_gmu.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_gmu.c
index ea52374c9fcd481d816ed9608e9f6eb1c2e3005a..de8f7051402bf0fd931fc065b5c4c49e2bfd5dc7 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_gmu.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_gmu.c
@@ -1694,6 +1694,7 @@ static int a6xx_gmu_acd_probe(struct a6xx_gmu *gmu)
 		u32 val;
 
 		freq = gmu->gpu_freqs[i];
+		/* This is unlikely to fail because we are passing back a known freq */
 		opp = dev_pm_opp_find_freq_exact(&gpu->pdev->dev, freq, true);
 		np = dev_pm_opp_get_of_node(opp);
 

-- 
2.50.1

On 9/2/25 1:50 PM, Akhil P Oommen wrote:
> It is not obvious why we can skip error checking of
> dev_pm_opp_find_freq_exact() API. Add a comment explaining it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Akhil P Oommen <akhilpo@oss.qualcomm.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_gmu.c | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_gmu.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_gmu.c
> index ea52374c9fcd481d816ed9608e9f6eb1c2e3005a..de8f7051402bf0fd931fc065b5c4c49e2bfd5dc7 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_gmu.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_gmu.c
> @@ -1694,6 +1694,7 @@ static int a6xx_gmu_acd_probe(struct a6xx_gmu *gmu)
>  		u32 val;
>  
>  		freq = gmu->gpu_freqs[i];
> +		/* This is unlikely to fail because we are passing back a known freq */

This could probably mention that known == we just retrieved it a couple
function calls above, but I suppose the reader can come up with such
conclusions

Reviewed-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@oss.qualcomm.com>

Konrad

On Tue, Sep 2, 2025 at 5:33 AM Konrad Dybcio
<konrad.dybcio@oss.qualcomm.com> wrote:
>
> On 9/2/25 1:50 PM, Akhil P Oommen wrote:
> > It is not obvious why we can skip error checking of
> > dev_pm_opp_find_freq_exact() API. Add a comment explaining it.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Akhil P Oommen <akhilpo@oss.qualcomm.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_gmu.c | 1 +
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_gmu.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_gmu.c
> > index ea52374c9fcd481d816ed9608e9f6eb1c2e3005a..de8f7051402bf0fd931fc065b5c4c49e2bfd5dc7 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_gmu.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_gmu.c
> > @@ -1694,6 +1694,7 @@ static int a6xx_gmu_acd_probe(struct a6xx_gmu *gmu)
> >               u32 val;
> >
> >               freq = gmu->gpu_freqs[i];
> > +             /* This is unlikely to fail because we are passing back a known freq */
>
> This could probably mention that known == we just retrieved it a couple
> function calls above, but I suppose the reader can come up with such
> conclusions

Also, I think s/unlikely/not expected/ ?  "Unlikely" implies that it
could still happen..

BR,
-R

>
> Reviewed-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@oss.qualcomm.com>
>
> Konrad

On 9/2/25 5:57 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 2, 2025 at 5:33 AM Konrad Dybcio
> <konrad.dybcio@oss.qualcomm.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 9/2/25 1:50 PM, Akhil P Oommen wrote:
>>> It is not obvious why we can skip error checking of
>>> dev_pm_opp_find_freq_exact() API. Add a comment explaining it.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Akhil P Oommen <akhilpo@oss.qualcomm.com>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_gmu.c | 1 +
>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_gmu.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_gmu.c
>>> index ea52374c9fcd481d816ed9608e9f6eb1c2e3005a..de8f7051402bf0fd931fc065b5c4c49e2bfd5dc7 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_gmu.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_gmu.c
>>> @@ -1694,6 +1694,7 @@ static int a6xx_gmu_acd_probe(struct a6xx_gmu *gmu)
>>>               u32 val;
>>>
>>>               freq = gmu->gpu_freqs[i];
>>> +             /* This is unlikely to fail because we are passing back a known freq */
>>
>> This could probably mention that known == we just retrieved it a couple
>> function calls above, but I suppose the reader can come up with such
>> conclusions
> 
> Also, I think s/unlikely/not expected/ ?  "Unlikely" implies that it
> could still happen..

Yeah, "unlikely" as in "cosmic rays" or other kinds of mem corruption

Konrad