On 06-11-20, 21:41, Frank Lee wrote: > On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 9:18 PM Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > 06.11.2020 09:15, Viresh Kumar пишет: > > > Setting regulators for count as 0 doesn't sound good to me. > > > > > > But, I understand that you don't want to have that if (have_regulator) > > > check, and it is a fair request. What I will instead do is, allow all > > > dev_pm_opp_put*() API to start accepting a NULL pointer for the OPP > > > table and fail silently. And so you won't be required to have this > > > unwanted check. But you will be required to save the pointer returned > > > back by dev_pm_opp_set_regulators(), which is the right thing to do > > > anyways. > > > > Perhaps even a better variant could be to add a devm versions of the OPP > > API functions, then drivers won't need to care about storing the > > opp_table pointer if it's unused by drivers. > > I think so. The consumer may not be so concerned about the status of > these OPP tables. > If the driver needs to manage the release, it needs to add a pointer > to their driver global structure. > > Maybe it's worth having these devm interfaces for opp. Sure if there are enough users of this, I am all for it. I was fine with the patches you sent, just that there were not a lot of users of it and so I pushed them back. If we find that we have more users of it now, we can surely get that back. -- viresh
