On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 12:27 PM Doug Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 11:41 AM Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > From: Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > If we get an error (other than -ENOENT) we need to propagate that up the > > stack. Otherwise if the nvmem driver hasn't probed yet, we'll end up with > > whatever OPP(s) are represented by bit zero. > > Can you explain the "whatever OPP(s) are represented by bit zero" > part? This doesn't seem to be true because `supp_hw` is initiated to > UINT_MAX. If I'm remembering how this all works, doesn't that mean > that if we get an error we'll assume all OPPs are OK? Oh, that's right.. and even worse! Ok, stand by for v2 > I'm not saying that I'm against your change, but I think maybe you're > misdescribing the old behavior. > > Speaking of the initialization of supp_hw, if we want to change the > behavior like your patch does then we should be able to remove that > initialization, right? > > I would also suspect that your patch will result in a compiler > warning, at least on some compilers. The goto label `done` is no > longer needed, right? > > -Doug
