[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201016042434.org6ibdqsqbzcdww@vireshk-i7>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 09:54:34 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
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 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 ?
> We use dev_pm_opp_add to add OPPs
> read from the firmware and this change is preventing that.
>
> Sorry for checking this so late, but noticed only when this hit mainline.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Sudeep
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists