From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Viresh Kumar Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/17] PM / OPP: Parse clock-latency and voltage-tolerance for v1 bindings Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 11:05:34 +0530 Message-ID: <20160113053534.GC6050@ubuntu> References: <25cb4d7e9169815448193bd93305fae31a83792c.1450777582.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org> <20160112012905.GK22188@codeaurora.org> <20160112051413.GK1084@ubuntu> <20160113003650.GC22188@codeaurora.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail-pf0-f181.google.com ([209.85.192.181]:33612 "EHLO mail-pf0-f181.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754123AbcAMFfj (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jan 2016 00:35:39 -0500 Received: by mail-pf0-f181.google.com with SMTP id e65so75387458pfe.0 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 21:35:37 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160113003650.GC22188@codeaurora.org> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Boyd Cc: Rafael Wysocki , linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, nm@ti.com On 12-01-16, 16:36, Stephen Boyd wrote: > On 01/12, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > On 11-01-16, 17:29, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > > On 12/22, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > > @@ -580,6 +581,21 @@ static struct device_opp *_add_device_opp_reg(struct device *dev, > > > > return NULL; > > > > } > > > > > > > > + /* > > > > + * Only required for backward compatibility with v1 bindings, but isn't > > > > + * harmful for other cases. And so we do it unconditionally. > > > > + */ > > > > + np = of_node_get(dev->of_node); > > > > + if (np) { > > > > + u32 val; > > > > + > > > > + if (!of_property_read_u32(np, "clock-latency", &val)) > > > > + dev_opp->clock_latency_ns_max = val; > > > > This is u64 type variable, but we are reading a 32 bit value from DT > > and so wrote it that way. > > > > > > + of_property_read_u32(np, "voltage-tolerance", > > > > + &dev_opp->voltage_tolerance_v1); > > > > And this is u32 type. > > > > > Why do we conditionalize the assignment for clock latency but not > > > for voltage tolerance? > > > > Nothing more than what I described earlier. > > > > Ok. Should I consider that an Reviewed-by ? -- viresh