Quoting Jordan Crouse (2018-11-21 07:00:06) > On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 11:54:46PM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > Quoting Jordan Crouse (2018-11-19 15:47:06) > > > @@ -1203,6 +1236,12 @@ int a6xx_gmu_probe(struct a6xx_gpu *a6xx_gpu, struct device_node *node) > > > if (gmu->hfi_irq < 0 || gmu->gmu_irq < 0) > > > goto err; > > > > > > + /* > > > + * Get a link to the GX power domain to reset the GPU in case of GMU > > > + * crash > > > + */ > > > + gmu->gxpd = dev_pm_domain_attach_by_name(gmu->dev, "gx"); > > > > Are there a6xx devices that don't have this genpd? Just curious if we > > could always assume that if it's an a6xx gpu then this must be there and > > we can always call pm_runtime_get/put on it and avoid the if (!IS_ERR()) > > checks. > > Mainly I was trying to be backwards compatible with the device tree. I didn't > want to derail various development efforts. I don't mind the checks (though I > wish that pm_runtime_* was error tolerant) but folks really hate them we can > replace this with an error return and force people to update their device trees. > Ok. Well we don't have this DT node in mainline yet so either followup after the merge cycle and remove the checks, or just take the pain now and remove the checks and tell people using out of tree DT to update?
