12.03.2021 13:36, Ulf Hansson пишет:
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2021 at 06:33, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On 11-03-21, 22:20, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>>> +struct opp_table *devm_pm_opp_set_clkname(struct device *dev, const char *name)
>>> +{
>>> + struct opp_table *opp_table;
>>> + int err;
>>> +
>>> + opp_table = dev_pm_opp_set_clkname(dev, name);
>>> + if (IS_ERR(opp_table))
>>> + return opp_table;
>>> +
>>> + err = devm_add_action_or_reset(dev, devm_pm_opp_clkname_release, opp_table);
>>> + if (err)
>>> + opp_table = ERR_PTR(err);
>>> +
>>> + return opp_table;
>>> +}
>>
>> I wonder if we still need to return opp_table from here, or a simple
>> integer is fine.. The callers shouldn't be required to use the OPP
>> table directly anymore I believe and so better simplify the return
>> part of this and all other routines you are adding here..
>
> Yes, please. I was thinking along the same lines, when I reviewed the
> mmc patch (patch9).
>
>>
>> If there is a user which needs the opp_table, let it use the regular
>> non-devm variant.
Indeed, that's a very good suggestion! The opp_table isn't needed by the
devm users, I'll change it in v3, thanks!
