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. Yangtao
