On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 01:31:30PM +0300, Ilia Lin wrote: > +#define SILVER_LEAD 0 > +#define GOLD_LEAD 2 Okay, two different values here, but "GOLD_LEAD" appears unused. > + cpu_dev_silver = get_cpu_device(SILVER_LEAD); > + if (NULL == cpu_dev_silver) > + return -ENODEV; > + > + cpu_dev_gold = get_cpu_device(SILVER_LEAD); > + if (NULL == cpu_dev_gold) > + return -ENODEV; get_cpu_device() takes the logical CPU number. So the above gets CPU 0 each time, and so cpu_dev_silver == cpu_dev_gold here. So what's the point of the second get_cpu_device() ? If it's supposed to be: cpu_dev_gold = get_cpu_device(GOLD_LEAD); That would get CPU 2, but in terms of these defines, it doesn't make that much sense. What exactly does "silver lead" and "gold lead" refer to in these definitions? > + opp_silver = dev_pm_opp_set_supported_hw(cpu_dev_silver,&versions,1); > + if (IS_ERR(opp_silver)) { > + dev_err(cpu_dev_silver, "Failed to set supported hardware\n"); > + ret = PTR_ERR(opp_silver); > + goto free_np; > + } > + > + opp_gold = dev_pm_opp_set_supported_hw(cpu_dev_gold,&versions,1); > + if (IS_ERR(opp_gold)) { > + dev_err(cpu_dev_gold, "Failed to set supported hardware\n"); > + ret = PTR_ERR(opp_gold); > + goto free_opp_silver; > + } Given that cpu_dev_silver == cpu_dev_gold, doesn't the second call to dev_pm_opp_set_supported_hw() always fail, as opp_table->supported_hw will be set by the first call? To me, this driver looks completely useless as it will always fail to initialise, and I question whether this code has even been runtime tested. -- RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 8.8Mbps down 630kbps up According to speedtest.net: 8.21Mbps down 510kbps up -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html