Nishanth Menon <nm@xxxxxx> writes:
> On 10:26-20120316, Maximilian Schwerin wrote:
> [...]
>> > >>> +
>> > >>> + if ((strcmp(opp_def->hwmod_name,"iva") ==
>> > 0) && !omap3_has_iva())
>> > >>> + continue;
>> > >>> +
>> > >>> oh = omap_hwmod_lookup(opp_def->hwmod_name);
>> > >>> if (!oh || !oh->od) {
>> > >>> pr_warn("%s: no hwmod or odev for %s, [%d] "
>> > >>
>> > >> Wouldn't the one-liner below do the same thing?
>> > >>
>> > >> Actually, your patch makes it less noisy at boot time, avoiding the
>> > >> pr_warn(), so is probably better.
>> > >
>> > > The only issue i have with current patch is that it
>> > focusses to solve
>> > > a specific device IVA.
>> > > we could have similar variances if we had SGX/AESS device etc
>> > > registered in the common
>> > > table. a generic solution might be preferable - could we reduce the
>> > > severity of pr_warn to pr_debug and do a continue instead?
>> >
>> > I agree, that would be a better generic solution.
>> >
>> > Kevin
>> >
>>
>> This is a pragmatic and simple solution for a well understood problem with no side effects. Why not fix the problem now and do the generic solution later on?
>>
>> I'm not a fulltime kernel dev. I have about two weeks to get my new board out to my customer... Every time I set up a new board, I have to fix problems using known patches that are sometimes years old. Every patch I have to find costs me hours of time I really don't have.
>>
>> Just my two cents (euro cents of course :-), Maximilian
> ok, so lets fix it generically - here is the patch for it. Let us know
> if this works for you
>
>
> From 5275d09c9f1a16c8f0814745e1c313c6cca049f6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Nishanth Menon <nm@xxxxxx>
> Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 09:13:24 -0500
> Subject: [PATCH] OMAP2+: OPP: allow OPP enumeration to continue if device is not present
>
> On platforms such as OMAP3, certain variants may not have IVA, SGX
> or some specific component. We currently have a check to aid fixing
> wrong population of OPP entries for issues such as typos. This however
> causes a conflict with valid requirement where the SoC variant does
> not actually have the module present.
>
> So, reduce the severity of the print to a debug statement and skip
> registering that specific OPP, but continue down the list.
>
> Reported-by: Steve Sakoman <steve@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Reported-by: Maximilian Schwerin <mvs@xxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Nishanth Menon <nm@xxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/arm/mach-omap2/opp.c | 4 ++--
> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/opp.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/opp.c
> index 9262a6b..de6d464 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/opp.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/opp.c
> @@ -64,10 +64,10 @@ int __init omap_init_opp_table(struct omap_opp_def *opp_def,
> }
> oh = omap_hwmod_lookup(opp_def->hwmod_name);
> if (!oh || !oh->od) {
> - pr_warn("%s: no hwmod or odev for %s, [%d] "
> + pr_debug("%s: no hwmod or odev for %s, [%d] "
> "cannot add OPPs.\n", __func__,
> opp_def->hwmod_name, i);
> - return -EINVAL;
> + continue;
> }
> dev = &oh->od->pdev->dev;
>
Yes, thanks for doing this more genericly.
Nishanth, can you collect the acks/tested-bys and repost and official
patch.
I'll queue this up.
Thanks,
Kevin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
