[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160422222736.GU13149@codeaurora.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 15:27:36 -0700
From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>, linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, nm@...com, arnd.bergmann@...aro.org,
andrew@...n.ch, gregory.clement@...e-electrons.com,
jason@...edaemon.net, sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com,
thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/10] cpufreq: dt: Identify cpu-sharing for platforms
without operating-points-v2
On 04/21, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> @@ -167,14 +167,16 @@ static int cpufreq_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> /* Get OPP-sharing information from "operating-points-v2" bindings */
> ret = dev_pm_opp_of_get_sharing_cpus(cpu_dev, policy->cpus);
> if (ret) {
> + if (ret != -ENOENT)
> + goto out_put_clk;
> +
> /*
> * operating-points-v2 not supported, fallback to old method of
> - * finding shared-OPPs for backward compatibility.
> + * finding shared-OPPs for backward compatibility if the
> + * platform hasn't set sharing CPUs.
> */
> - if (ret == -ENOENT)
> - opp_v1 = true;
> - else
> - goto out_put_clk;
> + if (dev_pm_opp_get_sharing_cpus(cpu_dev, policy->cpus))
> + fallback = true;
I'm sort of lost, we make the same call twice here. Why would the
return value change between the first time and the second?
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
Powered by blists - more mailing lists