On 5/5/2020 5:03 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
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!
Thanks Ulf, I should have sent this out as a standalone patch instead of including
it with the reset of the series, which caused the confusion. Sorry about that :/
--
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member
of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
