On Mon, 31 Aug 2020 at 12:45, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 28-08-20, 10:43, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 at 08:08, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table() doesn't report any errors when it fails to > > > find the OPP table with error -ENODEV (i.e. OPP table not present for > > > the device). And we can call dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table() > > > unconditionally here. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Replaced v1 with v2 on my next branch, thanks! > > > > Just to be sure, this patch doesn't depend on any changes for the opp > > core that are queued for v5.10? > > The recent crashes reported by Anders and Naresh were related to a OPP > core bug, for which I have just sent the fix here: > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/922ff0759a16299e24cacfc981ac07914d8f1826.1598865786.git.viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > This is already tested by Naresh now and finally everything works as > expected. > > I am going to get this fix merged in 5.9-rc4, but we do have a > dependency now with that fix. > > What's the best way to handle this stuff now ? The easiest IMO would > be for me to send these patches through the OPP tree, otherwise people > need to carry this and the OPP fix (for which I can provide the > branch/tag). No need for a tag/branch to be shared. Instead I am simply going to defer to pick up any related changes for mmc, until I can rebase my tree on an rc[n] that contains your fix. When that is possible, please re-post the mmc patches. Kind regards Uffe
