[PATCH V2 0/8] opp: Unconditionally call dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table()

[PATCH V2 0/8] opp: Unconditionally call dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table()

[Viresh Kumar]

Hello,

This cleans up some of the user code around calls to
dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table().

All the patches can be picked by respective maintainers directly except
for the last patch, which needs the previous two to get merged first.

These are based for 5.9-rc1.

Rajendra, Since most of these changes are related to qcom stuff, it
would be great if you can give them a try. I wasn't able to test them
due to lack of hardware.

Ulf, I had to revise the sdhci patch, sorry about that. Please pick this
one.

Diff between V1 and V2 is mentioned in each of the patches separately.

Viresh Kumar (8):
  cpufreq: imx6q: Unconditionally call dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table()
  drm/lima: Unconditionally call dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table()
  drm/msm: Unconditionally call dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table()
  mmc: sdhci-msm: Unconditionally call dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table()
  spi: spi-geni-qcom: Unconditionally call dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table()
  spi: spi-qcom-qspi: Unconditionally call dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table()
  tty: serial: qcom_geni_serial: Unconditionally call
    dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table()
  qcom-geni-se: remove has_opp_table

 drivers/cpufreq/imx6q-cpufreq.c         | 10 ++--------
 drivers/gpu/drm/lima/lima_devfreq.c     |  6 +-----
 drivers/gpu/drm/lima/lima_devfreq.h     |  1 -
 drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_kms.c | 14 +++++---------
 drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_kms.h |  1 -
 drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi_host.c      |  8 ++------
 drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c            | 14 +++++---------
 drivers/spi/spi-geni-qcom.c             | 13 +++++--------
 drivers/spi/spi-qcom-qspi.c             | 15 ++++++---------
 drivers/tty/serial/qcom_geni_serial.c   | 13 +++++--------
 include/linux/qcom-geni-se.h            |  2 --
 11 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 66 deletions(-)


base-commit: 9123e3a74ec7b934a4a099e98af6a61c2f80bbf5
-- 
2.25.0.rc1.19.g042ed3e048af

[PATCH V2 4/8] mmc: sdhci-msm: Unconditionally call dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table()

[Viresh Kumar]

dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table() doesn't report any errors when it fails to
find the OPP table with error -ENODEV (i.e. OPP table not present for
the device). And we can call dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table()
unconditionally here.

Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>

---
V2:
- Compare with -ENODEV only for failures.
- Create new label to put clkname.
---
 drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c | 14 +++++---------
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c
index 5a33389037cd..f7beaec6412e 100644
--- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c
+++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c
@@ -263,7 +263,6 @@ struct sdhci_msm_host {
 	unsigned long clk_rate;
 	struct mmc_host *mmc;
 	struct opp_table *opp_table;
-	bool has_opp_table;
 	bool use_14lpp_dll_reset;
 	bool tuning_done;
 	bool calibration_done;
@@ -2285,11 +2284,9 @@ static int sdhci_msm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 
 	/* OPP table is optional */
 	ret = dev_pm_opp_of_add_table(&pdev->dev);
-	if (!ret) {
-		msm_host->has_opp_table = true;
-	} else if (ret != -ENODEV) {
+	if (ret && ret != -ENODEV) {
 		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Invalid OPP table in Device tree\n");
-		goto opp_cleanup;
+		goto opp_put_clkname;
 	}
 
 	/* Vote for maximum clock rate for maximum performance */
@@ -2453,8 +2450,8 @@ static int sdhci_msm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 	clk_bulk_disable_unprepare(ARRAY_SIZE(msm_host->bulk_clks),
 				   msm_host->bulk_clks);
 opp_cleanup:
-	if (msm_host->has_opp_table)
-		dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table(&pdev->dev);
+	dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table(&pdev->dev);
+opp_put_clkname:
 	dev_pm_opp_put_clkname(msm_host->opp_table);
 bus_clk_disable:
 	if (!IS_ERR(msm_host->bus_clk))
@@ -2474,8 +2471,7 @@ static int sdhci_msm_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
 
 	sdhci_remove_host(host, dead);
 
-	if (msm_host->has_opp_table)
-		dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table(&pdev->dev);
+	dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table(&pdev->dev);
 	dev_pm_opp_put_clkname(msm_host->opp_table);
 	pm_runtime_get_sync(&pdev->dev);
 	pm_runtime_disable(&pdev->dev);
-- 
2.25.0.rc1.19.g042ed3e048af

Re: [PATCH V2 4/8] mmc: sdhci-msm: Unconditionally call dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table()

[Ulf Hansson]

On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 at 08:08, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table() doesn't report any errors when it fails to
> find the OPP table with error -ENODEV (i.e. OPP table not present for
> the device). And we can call dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table()
> unconditionally here.
>
> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>

Replaced v1 with v2 on my next branch, thanks!

Just to be sure, this patch doesn't depend on any changes for the opp
core that are queued for v5.10?

Kind regards
Uffe



>
> ---
> V2:
> - Compare with -ENODEV only for failures.
> - Create new label to put clkname.
> ---
>  drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c | 14 +++++---------
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c
> index 5a33389037cd..f7beaec6412e 100644
> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c
> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c
> @@ -263,7 +263,6 @@ struct sdhci_msm_host {
>         unsigned long clk_rate;
>         struct mmc_host *mmc;
>         struct opp_table *opp_table;
> -       bool has_opp_table;
>         bool use_14lpp_dll_reset;
>         bool tuning_done;
>         bool calibration_done;
> @@ -2285,11 +2284,9 @@ static int sdhci_msm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>
>         /* OPP table is optional */
>         ret = dev_pm_opp_of_add_table(&pdev->dev);
> -       if (!ret) {
> -               msm_host->has_opp_table = true;
> -       } else if (ret != -ENODEV) {
> +       if (ret && ret != -ENODEV) {
>                 dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Invalid OPP table in Device tree\n");
> -               goto opp_cleanup;
> +               goto opp_put_clkname;
>         }
>
>         /* Vote for maximum clock rate for maximum performance */
> @@ -2453,8 +2450,8 @@ static int sdhci_msm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>         clk_bulk_disable_unprepare(ARRAY_SIZE(msm_host->bulk_clks),
>                                    msm_host->bulk_clks);
>  opp_cleanup:
> -       if (msm_host->has_opp_table)
> -               dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table(&pdev->dev);
> +       dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table(&pdev->dev);
> +opp_put_clkname:
>         dev_pm_opp_put_clkname(msm_host->opp_table);
>  bus_clk_disable:
>         if (!IS_ERR(msm_host->bus_clk))
> @@ -2474,8 +2471,7 @@ static int sdhci_msm_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
>
>         sdhci_remove_host(host, dead);
>
> -       if (msm_host->has_opp_table)
> -               dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table(&pdev->dev);
> +       dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table(&pdev->dev);
>         dev_pm_opp_put_clkname(msm_host->opp_table);
>         pm_runtime_get_sync(&pdev->dev);
>         pm_runtime_disable(&pdev->dev);
> --
> 2.25.0.rc1.19.g042ed3e048af
>

Re: [PATCH V2 4/8] mmc: sdhci-msm: Unconditionally call dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table()

[Doug Anderson]

Hi,

On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 1:44 AM Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 at 08:08, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table() doesn't report any errors when it fails to
> > find the OPP table with error -ENODEV (i.e. OPP table not present for
> > the device). And we can call dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table()
> > unconditionally here.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
>
> Replaced v1 with v2 on my next branch, thanks!

Actually, I don't see it on there yet, but at least the old broken v1
isn't there anymore.  ;-)

I picked v2 and tried it on my sc7180-based device (which does have
OPP tables).  It worked fine.  Thus:

Tested-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>

I looked at the code and it looks right to me.  Thus:

Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>


> Just to be sure, this patch doesn't depend on any changes for the opp
> core that are queued for v5.10?

Running atop mmc-next, I see the check for -ENODEV, so I'm gonna
assume that the required change is there.

$ git grep -A10 'void _dev_pm_opp_find_and_remove_table' -- drivers/opp/core.c
drivers/opp/core.c:void _dev_pm_opp_find_and_remove_table(struct device *dev)
drivers/opp/core.c-{
drivers/opp/core.c-     struct opp_table *opp_table;
drivers/opp/core.c-
drivers/opp/core.c-     /* Check for existing table for 'dev' */
drivers/opp/core.c-     opp_table = _find_opp_table(dev);
drivers/opp/core.c-     if (IS_ERR(opp_table)) {
drivers/opp/core.c-             int error = PTR_ERR(opp_table);
drivers/opp/core.c-
drivers/opp/core.c-             if (error != -ENODEV)
drivers/opp/core.c-                     WARN(1, "%s: opp_table: %d\n",

Re: [PATCH V2 4/8] mmc: sdhci-msm: Unconditionally call dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table()

[Viresh Kumar]

On 28-08-20, 10:43, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 at 08:08, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table() doesn't report any errors when it fails to
> > find the OPP table with error -ENODEV (i.e. OPP table not present for
> > the device). And we can call dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table()
> > unconditionally here.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> 
> Replaced v1 with v2 on my next branch, thanks!
> 
> Just to be sure, this patch doesn't depend on any changes for the opp
> core that are queued for v5.10?

No it doesn't.

-- 
viresh

Re: [PATCH V2 4/8] mmc: sdhci-msm: Unconditionally call dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table()

[Viresh Kumar]

On 28-08-20, 10:43, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 at 08:08, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table() doesn't report any errors when it fails to
> > find the OPP table with error -ENODEV (i.e. OPP table not present for
> > the device). And we can call dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table()
> > unconditionally here.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> 
> Replaced v1 with v2 on my next branch, thanks!
> 
> Just to be sure, this patch doesn't depend on any changes for the opp
> core that are queued for v5.10?

The recent crashes reported by Anders and Naresh were related to a OPP
core bug, for which I have just sent the fix here:

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/922ff0759a16299e24cacfc981ac07914d8f1826.1598865786.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org/

This is already tested by Naresh now and finally everything works as
expected.

I am going to get this fix merged in 5.9-rc4, but we do have a
dependency now with that fix.

What's the best way to handle this stuff now ? The easiest IMO would
be for me to send these patches through the OPP tree, otherwise people
need to carry this and the OPP fix (for which I can provide the
branch/tag).

-- 
viresh

Re: [PATCH V2 4/8] mmc: sdhci-msm: Unconditionally call dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table()

[Ulf Hansson]

On Mon, 31 Aug 2020 at 12:45, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On 28-08-20, 10:43, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 at 08:08, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table() doesn't report any errors when it fails to
> > > find the OPP table with error -ENODEV (i.e. OPP table not present for
> > > the device). And we can call dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table()
> > > unconditionally here.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> >
> > Replaced v1 with v2 on my next branch, thanks!
> >
> > Just to be sure, this patch doesn't depend on any changes for the opp
> > core that are queued for v5.10?
>
> The recent crashes reported by Anders and Naresh were related to a OPP
> core bug, for which I have just sent the fix here:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/922ff0759a16299e24cacfc981ac07914d8f1826.1598865786.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org/
>
> This is already tested by Naresh now and finally everything works as
> expected.
>
> I am going to get this fix merged in 5.9-rc4, but we do have a
> dependency now with that fix.
>
> What's the best way to handle this stuff now ? The easiest IMO would
> be for me to send these patches through the OPP tree, otherwise people
> need to carry this and the OPP fix (for which I can provide the
> branch/tag).

No need for a tag/branch to be shared. Instead I am simply going to
defer to pick up any related changes for mmc, until I can rebase my
tree on an rc[n] that contains your fix.

When that is possible, please re-post the mmc patches.

Kind regards
Uffe

Re: [PATCH V2 4/8] mmc: sdhci-msm: Unconditionally call dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table()

[Viresh Kumar]

On 31-08-20, 12:57, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Aug 2020 at 12:45, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > On 28-08-20, 10:43, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > > On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 at 08:08, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table() doesn't report any errors when it fails to
> > > > find the OPP table with error -ENODEV (i.e. OPP table not present for
> > > > the device). And we can call dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table()
> > > > unconditionally here.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> > >
> > > Replaced v1 with v2 on my next branch, thanks!
> > >
> > > Just to be sure, this patch doesn't depend on any changes for the opp
> > > core that are queued for v5.10?
> >
> > The recent crashes reported by Anders and Naresh were related to a OPP
> > core bug, for which I have just sent the fix here:
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/922ff0759a16299e24cacfc981ac07914d8f1826.1598865786.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org/
> >
> > This is already tested by Naresh now and finally everything works as
> > expected.
> >
> > I am going to get this fix merged in 5.9-rc4, but we do have a
> > dependency now with that fix.
> >
> > What's the best way to handle this stuff now ? The easiest IMO would
> > be for me to send these patches through the OPP tree, otherwise people
> > need to carry this and the OPP fix (for which I can provide the
> > branch/tag).
> 
> No need for a tag/branch to be shared. Instead I am simply going to
> defer to pick up any related changes for mmc, until I can rebase my
> tree on an rc[n] that contains your fix.
> 
> When that is possible, please re-post the mmc patches.

The dependency patch got merged in 5.9-rc4. Do you still want me to
resend this patch or you can apply it directly from here ?

-- 
viresh

Re: [PATCH V2 4/8] mmc: sdhci-msm: Unconditionally call dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table()

[Ulf Hansson]

On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 13:07, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On 31-08-20, 12:57, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > On Mon, 31 Aug 2020 at 12:45, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 28-08-20, 10:43, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 at 08:08, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table() doesn't report any errors when it fails to
> > > > > find the OPP table with error -ENODEV (i.e. OPP table not present for
> > > > > the device). And we can call dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table()
> > > > > unconditionally here.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> > > >
> > > > Replaced v1 with v2 on my next branch, thanks!
> > > >
> > > > Just to be sure, this patch doesn't depend on any changes for the opp
> > > > core that are queued for v5.10?
> > >
> > > The recent crashes reported by Anders and Naresh were related to a OPP
> > > core bug, for which I have just sent the fix here:
> > >
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/922ff0759a16299e24cacfc981ac07914d8f1826.1598865786.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org/
> > >
> > > This is already tested by Naresh now and finally everything works as
> > > expected.
> > >
> > > I am going to get this fix merged in 5.9-rc4, but we do have a
> > > dependency now with that fix.
> > >
> > > What's the best way to handle this stuff now ? The easiest IMO would
> > > be for me to send these patches through the OPP tree, otherwise people
> > > need to carry this and the OPP fix (for which I can provide the
> > > branch/tag).
> >
> > No need for a tag/branch to be shared. Instead I am simply going to
> > defer to pick up any related changes for mmc, until I can rebase my
> > tree on an rc[n] that contains your fix.
> >
> > When that is possible, please re-post the mmc patches.
>
> The dependency patch got merged in 5.9-rc4. Do you still want me to
> resend this patch or you can apply it directly from here ?

Please re-submit, then I will pick it from the patchtracker.

Kind regards
Uffe

Re: [PATCH V2 0/8] opp: Unconditionally call dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table()

[Viresh Kumar]

On 28-08-20, 11:37, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> This cleans up some of the user code around calls to
> dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table().
> 
> All the patches can be picked by respective maintainers directly except
> for the last patch, which needs the previous two to get merged first.
> 
> These are based for 5.9-rc1.
 
> Viresh Kumar (8):
>   cpufreq: imx6q: Unconditionally call dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table()
>   drm/lima: Unconditionally call dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table()
>   drm/msm: Unconditionally call dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table()
>   mmc: sdhci-msm: Unconditionally call dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table()
>   spi: spi-geni-qcom: Unconditionally call dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table()
>   spi: spi-qcom-qspi: Unconditionally call dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table()
>   tty: serial: qcom_geni_serial: Unconditionally call
>     dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table()
>   qcom-geni-se: remove has_opp_table

During testing by some of the Linaro folks on linux-next, we found out
that there was a bug in the OPP core (which makes the kernel crash in
some corner cases with these patches) for which I have sent a fix
today which should be part of 5.9-rc4:

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/922ff0759a16299e24cacfc981ac07914d8f1826.1598865786.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org/

Please apply the patches over rc4 only once it comes out (I will
confirm by that time once the patch gets merged). Else you guys can
provide your Ack and I can take the patches through OPP tree.

-- 
viresh

Re: [PATCH V2 0/8] opp: Unconditionally call dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table()

[Viresh Kumar]

On 31-08-20, 16:39, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 28-08-20, 11:37, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > This cleans up some of the user code around calls to
> > dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table().
> > 
> > All the patches can be picked by respective maintainers directly except
> > for the last patch, which needs the previous two to get merged first.
> > 
> > These are based for 5.9-rc1.
>  
> > Viresh Kumar (8):
> >   cpufreq: imx6q: Unconditionally call dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table()
> >   drm/lima: Unconditionally call dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table()
> >   drm/msm: Unconditionally call dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table()
> >   mmc: sdhci-msm: Unconditionally call dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table()
> >   spi: spi-geni-qcom: Unconditionally call dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table()
> >   spi: spi-qcom-qspi: Unconditionally call dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table()
> >   tty: serial: qcom_geni_serial: Unconditionally call
> >     dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table()
> >   qcom-geni-se: remove has_opp_table
> 
> During testing by some of the Linaro folks on linux-next, we found out
> that there was a bug in the OPP core (which makes the kernel crash in
> some corner cases with these patches) for which I have sent a fix
> today which should be part of 5.9-rc4:
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/922ff0759a16299e24cacfc981ac07914d8f1826.1598865786.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org/
> 
> Please apply the patches over rc4 only once it comes out (I will
> confirm by that time once the patch gets merged). Else you guys can
> provide your Ack and I can take the patches through OPP tree.

The fix got merged in 5.9-rc4, please apply the patches from this
series in your trees and base them on rc4. Thanks.

-- 
viresh

Re: [PATCH V2 0/8] opp: Unconditionally call dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table()

[Mark Brown]

On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 11:37:45 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> This cleans up some of the user code around calls to
> dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table().
> 
> All the patches can be picked by respective maintainers directly except
> for the last patch, which needs the previous two to get merged first.
> 
> These are based for 5.9-rc1.
> 
> [...]

Applied to

   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/broonie/spi.git for-next

Thanks!

[1/2] spi: spi-geni-qcom: Unconditionally call dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table()
      commit: 7d568edff5cb7968cc5f29e85da15f941b8070b8
[2/2] spi: spi-qcom-qspi: Unconditionally call dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table()
      commit: 062cf7fc927d2546b58ed128383e5c52f26a00a5

All being well this means that it will be integrated into the linux-next
tree (usually sometime in the next 24 hours) and sent to Linus during
the next merge window (or sooner if it is a bug fix), however if
problems are discovered then the patch may be dropped or reverted.

You may get further e-mails resulting from automated or manual testing
and review of the tree, please engage with people reporting problems and
send followup patches addressing any issues that are reported if needed.

If any updates are required or you are submitting further changes they
should be sent as incremental updates against current git, existing
patches will not be replaced.

Please add any relevant lists and maintainers to the CCs when replying
to this mail.

Thanks,
Mark