Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 09/17] mmc: sdhci-msm: Fix error handling for dev_pm_opp_of_add_table() | From | Rajendra Nayak <> | Date | Tue, 5 May 2020 19:02:47 +0530 |
| |
On 5/5/2020 5:03 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote: > On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 at 16:09, Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@codeaurora.org> wrote: >> >> >> On 4/28/2020 11:59 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote: >>> On Tue, 28 Apr 2020 at 15:39, Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@codeaurora.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> Even though specifying OPP's in device tree is optional, ignoring all errors >>>> reported by dev_pm_opp_of_add_table() means we can't distinguish between a >>>> missing OPP table and a wrong/buggy OPP table. While missing OPP table >>>> (dev_pm_opp_of_add_table() returns a -ENODEV in such case) can be ignored, >>>> a wrong/buggy OPP table in device tree should make the driver error out. >>>> >>>> while we fix that, lets also fix the variable names for opp/opp_table to >>>> avoid confusion and name them opp_table/has_opp_table instead. >>>> >>>> Suggested-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <matthias@chromium.org> >>>> Signed-off-by: Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@codeaurora.org> >>>> Cc: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> >>>> Cc: Pradeep P V K <ppvk@codeaurora.org> >>>> Cc: Veerabhadrarao Badiganti <vbadigan@codeaurora.org> >>>> Cc: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org >>> >>> Is this a standalone patch that I queue up via my mmc tree? >> >> Hi Ulf, yes, its a standalone patch which applies on top of the one >> you already have in your tree. No other dependencies. > > Thanks for confirming! Perhaps next time you could add this > information as part of a description to the patch (where we usually > add patch version information). > > Anyway, applied for next!
Thanks Ulf, I should have sent this out as a standalone patch instead of including it with the reset of the series, which caused the confusion. Sorry about that :/
-- QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
| |