From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sudeep Holla Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] PM / OPP: Remove OF dependency on dev_pm_opp_of_{cpumask_,}remove_table Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 12:22:02 +0100 Message-ID: <5721F25A.8050505@arm.com> References: <1461839114-29857-1-git-send-email-sudeep.holla@arm.com> <20160428111221.GB2915@vireshk-i7> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20160428111221.GB2915@vireshk-i7> Sender: linux-samsung-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Viresh Kumar Cc: Sudeep Holla , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Viresh Kumar , Nishanth Menon , Stephen Boyd , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On 28/04/16 12:12, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 28-04-16, 11:25, Sudeep Holla wrote: >> + * dev_pm_opp_remove_table() - Free OPP table static entries associated with >> + * the device > > Its not about static entries anymore, right? We will end up removing everything > we had in the table. > No, not yet. I have not made that change yet. I just asked that question in patch 2. I still remove individually but wanted to know if removing dynamic opp is any issue ? The OPP added using dev_pm_opp_add are marked dynamic and are not deleted by dev_pm_opp_{,cpumask_}remove_table. If it does, then scpi_free_opp_table can be assigned that instead of what I have in patch 2/2. > Can you please update comments also in the same patch ? > Sure once you agree and I make that change ;) -- Regards, Sudeep