From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Boyd Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 5/7] qcom: cpuidle: Add cpuidle driver for QCOM cpus Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2014 18:22:07 -0700 Message-ID: <5435E33F.4060709@codeaurora.org> References: <1412718106-17049-1-git-send-email-lina.iyer@linaro.org> <1412718106-17049-6-git-send-email-lina.iyer@linaro.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1412718106-17049-6-git-send-email-lina.iyer@linaro.org> Sender: linux-arm-msm-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Lina Iyer Cc: daniel.lezcano@linaro.org, khilman@linaro.org, galak@codeaurora.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com, msivasub@codeaurora.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On 10/07/2014 02:41 PM, Lina Iyer wrote: > + > +static int qcom_cpuidle_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > +{ > + struct cpuidle_driver *drv = &qcom_cpuidle_driver; > + int ret; > + > + qcom_idle_enter = pdev->dev.platform_data; > + if (!qcom_idle_enter) > + return -EFAULT; Is this ever true? Let's just drop the whole check. -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project