[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150811060855.GH9678@codeaurora.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 23:08:55 -0700
From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>, nm@...com,
linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
khilman@...aro.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] PM / OPP: restructure _of_init_opp_table_v2()
On 08/11, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 10-08-15, 17:31, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > So ret is 0. I thought it was an error path, but I guess this is a
> > warning path and we return 0 still?
>
> Urg ..
Oh I see this is an existing problem... Same problem goes for the
count check. It may be better to fix those two cases first and
then do this cleanup. But I don't mind either way.
>
> -------------------------8<-------------------------
>
> Message-Id: <d0e8a9cd6b0fb38fa946cb6274f258d7aa66c00e.1439259818.git.viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
> From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
> Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 11:57:36 +0530
> Subject: [PATCH] PM / OPP: restructure _of_init_opp_table_v2()
>
> 'dev_opp' will always be NULL in _of_init_opp_table_v2() after creating
> OPPs for a device. There is no point comparing it against NULL there.
>
> Restructure code a bit to make it more efficient.
>
> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
> ---
Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
--
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