[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKohpom1t2sOWr_S5Xzhx_OG=2qmgkZ5Z6UJ4TKAmJgeq0TU2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 14:25:52 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Chander Kashyap <chander.kashyap@...aro.org>
Cc: Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"rjw@...ysocki.net" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Chander Kashyap <k.chander@...sung.com>,
Inderpal Singh <inderpal.s@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PM / OPP: discard duplicate OPP additions
On 15 May 2014 14:16, Chander Kashyap <chander.kashyap@...aro.org> wrote:
> Yes exactly. All users of this API need to be modified to handle
> EEXIST as success.
There are very few:
arch/arm/mach-omap2/opp.c
arch/arm/mach-vexpress/spc.c
drivers/devfreq/exynos/exynos4_bus.c
drivers/devfreq/exynos/exynos5_bus.c
So shouldn't be a problem fixing them..
> To avoid this returning 0 was suggested
But the bigger problem is that all new users have to know about this
and must take care of it, would also result in code duplication.
So, if I think this way:
The purpose of dev_pm_opp_add() is to make sure the OPP is
present with the device, when this function returns..
And with a duplicate entry, we can still confirm that. Over that, I couldn't
think of any situation where the caller wants to react to -EXIST separately.
They will still consider it as success.
So, maybe returning '0' isn't that bad of an idea :)
@Nishanth ?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists