[PATCH] ARM: OMAP2+: OPP: Fix to ensure check of right oppdef after bad one

[PATCH] ARM: OMAP2+: OPP: Fix to ensure check of right oppdef after bad one

[Nishanth Menon]

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>
---

 arch/arm/mach-omap2/opp.c |    3 +--
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/opp.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/opp.c
index de6d464..d8f6dbf 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/opp.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/opp.c
@@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ int __init omap_init_opp_table(struct omap_opp_def *opp_def,
 	omap_table_init = 1;
 
 	/* Lets now register with OPP library */
-	for (i = 0; i < opp_def_size; i++) {
+	for (i = 0; i < opp_def_size; i++, opp_def++) {
 		struct omap_hwmod *oh;
 		struct device *dev;
 
@@ -86,7 +86,6 @@ int __init omap_init_opp_table(struct omap_opp_def *opp_def,
 					__func__, opp_def->freq,
 					opp_def->hwmod_name, i, r);
 		}
-		opp_def++;
 	}
 
 	return 0;
-- 
1.7.9.5

[PATCH] ARM: OMAP2+: OPP: Fix to ensure check of right oppdef after bad one

[Kevin Hilman]

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)

Thanks for the fix!

Kevin

[PATCH] ARM: OMAP2+: OPP: Fix to ensure check of right oppdef after bad one

[Igor Grinberg]

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
?

Thanks


-- 
Regards,
Igor.

[PATCH] ARM: OMAP2+: OPP: Fix to ensure check of right oppdef after bad one

[Menon, Nishanth]

On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 2:03 AM, Igor Grinberg <grinberg@compulab.co.il> wrote:
>
> 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

I would like to think so, but punting over to Kevin on that decision.

Regards,
Nishanth Menon

[PATCH] ARM: OMAP2+: OPP: Fix to ensure check of right oppdef after bad one

[Kevin Hilman]

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