Re: [PATCH v3 09/17] mmc: sdhci-msm: Fix error handling for dev_pm_opp_of_add_table()

Rajendra Nayak
2020-05-05T13:33:07Z

On 5/5/2020 5:03 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 at 16:09, Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 4/28/2020 11:59 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>>> On Tue, 28 Apr 2020 at 15:39, Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Even though specifying OPP's in device tree is optional, ignoring all errors
>>>> reported by dev_pm_opp_of_add_table() means we can't distinguish between a
>>>> missing OPP table and a wrong/buggy OPP table. While missing OPP table
>>>> (dev_pm_opp_of_add_table() returns a -ENODEV in such case) can be ignored,
>>>> a wrong/buggy OPP table in device tree should make the driver error out.
>>>>
>>>> while we fix that, lets also fix the variable names for opp/opp_table to
>>>> avoid confusion and name them opp_table/has_opp_table instead.
>>>>
>>>> Suggested-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <matthias@chromium.org>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@codeaurora.org>
>>>> Cc: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
>>>> Cc: Pradeep P V K <ppvk@codeaurora.org>
>>>> Cc: Veerabhadrarao Badiganti <vbadigan@codeaurora.org>
>>>> Cc: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org
>>>
>>> Is this a standalone patch that I queue up via my mmc tree?
>>
>> Hi Ulf, yes, its a standalone patch which applies on top of the one
>> you already have in your tree. No other dependencies.
>
> Thanks for confirming! Perhaps next time you could add this
> information as part of a description to the patch (where we usually
> add patch version information).
>
> Anyway, applied for next!

Thanks Ulf, I should have sent this out as a standalone patch instead of including
it with the reset of the series, which caused the confusion. Sorry about that :/