[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKohpom_1cwXLM0FxkwtY_h3harjZ=XQfZgwtwoN4QDgs_pqQw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 15:24:47 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
Cc: "rjw@...ysocki.net" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
"linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Arvind Chauhan <Arvind.Chauhan@....com>,
"inderpal.s@...sung.com" <inderpal.s@...sung.com>,
"pavel@....cz" <pavel@....cz>, "nm@...com" <nm@...com>,
"chander.kashyap@...aro.org" <chander.kashyap@...aro.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Amit Daniel Kachhap <amit.daniel@...sung.com>,
Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@...sung.com>,
Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH Resend] driver/core: cpu: initialize opp table
On 21 May 2014 15:18, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com> wrote:
>> Why do we need to return anything? Let that function have return type
>> 'void'?
>
>
> Hmm, don't we still need to throw error if DT has invalid OPP ?
> It doesn't may sense to me if no errors is returned and still CPUFreq fails
> later.
I wasn't sure if we should fail CPU's registration if it had bad OPPs.
Maybe just print a good message and go ahead. CPU is usable atleast :)
>> Also would it make sense to move this into it as well?
>>
>> cpu->dev.of_node = of_get_cpu_node(num, NULL);
>>
>
> I don't quite understand what you mean here ?
This piece of code was added by you earlier to register_cpu(). As this was
also DT specific, should I move this as well to the new routine we are creating?
--
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