All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Kevin Hilman <khilman@ti.com>
To: Igor Grinberg <grinberg@compulab.co.il>
Cc: Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>, Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>,
	linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	Steve Sakoman <steve@sakoman.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: OMAP2+: OPP: Fix to ensure check of right oppdef after bad one
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 06:54:48 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87fwafuogn.fsf@ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4FC86926.5050404@compulab.co.il> (Igor Grinberg's message of "Fri, 01 Jun 2012 10:03:02 +0300")

Igor Grinberg <grinberg@compulab.co.il> writes:

> Hi Kevin, Nishanth,
>
> On 06/01/12 02:15, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>> Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com> writes:
>> 
>>> Commit 9fa2df6b90786301b175e264f5fa9846aba81a65
>>> (ARM: OMAP2+: OPP: allow OPP enumeration to continue if device is not present)
>>> makes the logic:
>>> for (i = 0; i < opp_def_size; i++) {
>>> 	<snip>
>>> 	if (!oh || !oh->od) {
>>> 		<snip>
>>> 		continue;
>>> 	}
>>> <snip>
>>> opp_def++;
>>> }
>>>
>>> In short, the moment we hit a "Bad OPP", we end up looping the list
>>> comparing against the bad opp definition pointer for the rest of the
>>> iteration count. Instead, increment opp_def in the for loop itself
>>> and allow continue to be used in code without much thought so that
>>> we check the next set of OPP definition pointers :)
>>>
>>> Cc: Kevin Hilman <khilman@ti.com>
>>> Cc: Steve Sakoman <steve@sakoman.com>
>>> Cc: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>
>>> Cc: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org
>>> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>
>> 
>> Good catch.
>> 
>> Queuing for my next set of PM fixes for v3.5-rc (branch: for_3.5/fixes/pm-2)
>
> I think this should also apply for stable, right?
> If it should, can you please add a
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org

Yes, added.

Thanks,

Kevin

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: khilman@ti.com (Kevin Hilman)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] ARM: OMAP2+: OPP: Fix to ensure check of right oppdef after bad one
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 06:54:48 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87fwafuogn.fsf@ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4FC86926.5050404@compulab.co.il> (Igor Grinberg's message of "Fri, 01 Jun 2012 10:03:02 +0300")

Igor Grinberg <grinberg@compulab.co.il> writes:

> Hi Kevin, Nishanth,
>
> On 06/01/12 02:15, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>> Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com> writes:
>> 
>>> Commit 9fa2df6b90786301b175e264f5fa9846aba81a65
>>> (ARM: OMAP2+: OPP: allow OPP enumeration to continue if device is not present)
>>> makes the logic:
>>> for (i = 0; i < opp_def_size; i++) {
>>> 	<snip>
>>> 	if (!oh || !oh->od) {
>>> 		<snip>
>>> 		continue;
>>> 	}
>>> <snip>
>>> opp_def++;
>>> }
>>>
>>> In short, the moment we hit a "Bad OPP", we end up looping the list
>>> comparing against the bad opp definition pointer for the rest of the
>>> iteration count. Instead, increment opp_def in the for loop itself
>>> and allow continue to be used in code without much thought so that
>>> we check the next set of OPP definition pointers :)
>>>
>>> Cc: Kevin Hilman <khilman@ti.com>
>>> Cc: Steve Sakoman <steve@sakoman.com>
>>> Cc: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>
>>> Cc: linux-omap at vger.kernel.org
>>> Cc: linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>
>> 
>> Good catch.
>> 
>> Queuing for my next set of PM fixes for v3.5-rc (branch: for_3.5/fixes/pm-2)
>
> I think this should also apply for stable, right?
> If it should, can you please add a
> Cc: stable at vger.kernel.org

Yes, added.

Thanks,

Kevin

  parent reply	other threads:[~2012-06-01 13:54 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-05-18 17:26 [PATCH] ARM: OMAP2+: OPP: Fix to ensure check of right oppdef after bad one Nishanth Menon
2012-05-18 17:26 ` Nishanth Menon
2012-05-31 23:15 ` Kevin Hilman
2012-05-31 23:15   ` Kevin Hilman
2012-06-01  7:03   ` Igor Grinberg
2012-06-01  7:03     ` Igor Grinberg
2012-06-01  7:05     ` Menon, Nishanth
2012-06-01  7:05       ` Menon, Nishanth
2012-06-01 13:54     ` Kevin Hilman [this message]
2012-06-01 13:54       ` Kevin Hilman

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=87fwafuogn.fsf@ti.com \
    --to=khilman@ti.com \
    --cc=grinberg@compulab.co.il \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-omap@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=nm@ti.com \
    --cc=steve@sakoman.com \
    --cc=tony@atomide.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.