[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201016060021.sotk72u4hioctg7o@bogus>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 07:00:21 +0100
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: ulf.hansson@...aro.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Viresh Kumar <vireshk@...nel.org>, Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, Kukjin Kim <kgene@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>, nks@...wful.org,
georgi.djakov@...aro.org, Stephan Gerhold <stephan@...hold.net>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] opp: Allow dev_pm_opp_get_opp_table() to return
-EPROBE_DEFER
On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 09:54:34AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 15-10-20, 19:05, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > OK, this breaks with SCMI which doesn't provide clocks but manage OPPs
> > directly. Before this change clk_get(dev..) was allowed to fail and
> > --EPROBE_DEFER was not an error.
>
> I think the change in itself is fine. We should be returning from
> there if we get EPROBE_DEFER. The question is rather why are you
> getting EPROBE_DEFER here ?
>
Ah OK, I didn't spend too much time, saw -EPROBE_DEFER, just reverted
this patch and it worked. I need to check it in detail yet.
--
Regards,
Sudeep
Powered by blists - more mailing lists