[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+G9fYt-k9FMq0HcRN5iQyvt7yaz8YMpENcUktm7yQ1y+zgd1A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 14:45:21 +0530
From: Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>
To: Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Cc: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, vbadigan@...eaurora.org,
Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...eaurora.org>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mmc <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmc: sdhci-msm: When dev_pm_opp_of_add_table() returns 0
it's not an error
On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 at 01:57, Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 at 21:03, Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org> wrote:
> >
> > The commit d05a7238fe1c ("mmc: sdhci-msm: Unconditionally call
> > dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table()") works fine in the case where there is
> > no OPP table. However, if there is an OPP table then
> > dev_pm_opp_of_add_table() will return 0. Since 0 != -ENODEV then the
> > "if (ret != -ENODEV)" will evaluate to true and we'll fall into the
> > error case. Oops.
> >
> > Let's fix this.
> >
> > Fixes: d05a7238fe1c ("mmc: sdhci-msm: Unconditionally call dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table()")
> > Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
>
> Reported-by: Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>
>
> I will test this patch and report again on this email thread.
Sorry this patch did not solve the reported problem.
However, I would be testing the V2 set from Viresh Kumar.
and report the test results on the other patch set [1].
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pm/cover.1598594714.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org
Powered by blists - more mailing lists