Igor Grinberg <grinberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Hi Kevin, Nishanth,
>
> On 06/01/12 02:15, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>> Nishanth Menon <nm@xxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>> Commit 9fa2df6b90786301b175e264f5fa9846aba81a65
>>> (ARM: OMAP2+: OPP: allow OPP enumeration to continue if device is not present)
>>> makes the logic:
>>> for (i = 0; i < opp_def_size; i++) {
>>> <snip>
>>> if (!oh || !oh->od) {
>>> <snip>
>>> continue;
>>> }
>>> <snip>
>>> opp_def++;
>>> }
>>>
>>> In short, the moment we hit a "Bad OPP", we end up looping the list
>>> comparing against the bad opp definition pointer for the rest of the
>>> iteration count. Instead, increment opp_def in the for loop itself
>>> and allow continue to be used in code without much thought so that
>>> we check the next set of OPP definition pointers :)
>>>
>>> Cc: Kevin Hilman <khilman@xxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Steve Sakoman <steve@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Tony Lindgren <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: linux-omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Nishanth Menon <nm@xxxxxx>
>>
>> Good catch.
>>
>> Queuing for my next set of PM fixes for v3.5-rc (branch: for_3.5/fixes/pm-2)
>
> I think this should also apply for stable, right?
> If it should, can you please add a
> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Yes, added.
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
