On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 at 16:09, Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 4/28/2020 11:59 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > On Tue, 28 Apr 2020 at 15:39, Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> Even though specifying OPP's in device tree is optional, ignoring all errors > >> reported by dev_pm_opp_of_add_table() means we can't distinguish between a > >> missing OPP table and a wrong/buggy OPP table. While missing OPP table > >> (dev_pm_opp_of_add_table() returns a -ENODEV in such case) can be ignored, > >> a wrong/buggy OPP table in device tree should make the driver error out. > >> > >> while we fix that, lets also fix the variable names for opp/opp_table to > >> avoid confusion and name them opp_table/has_opp_table instead. > >> > >> Suggested-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <matthias@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Signed-off-by: Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Cc: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> Cc: Pradeep P V K <ppvk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Cc: Veerabhadrarao Badiganti <vbadigan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Cc: linux-mmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > Is this a standalone patch that I queue up via my mmc tree? > > Hi Ulf, yes, its a standalone patch which applies on top of the one > you already have in your tree. No other dependencies. Thanks for confirming! Perhaps next time you could add this information as part of a description to the patch (where we usually add patch version information). Anyway, applied for next! [...] Kind regards Uffe
