11.11.2020 10:54, Viresh Kumar пишет: > On 11-11-20, 10:32, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: >> 11.11.2020 09:18, Viresh Kumar пишет: >>> On 11-11-20, 09:14, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: >>>> The dev_pm_opp_of_add_table() will produce a error message which doesn't >>>> give a clue about what's wrong, i.e. that device-tree needs to be updated. >>> >>> If you think that you need to print something more, then you can do >>> that in the error message you print when dev_pm_opp_of_add_table() >>> fails. I would suggest to drop this redundant check here. >>> >> >> Please give the rationale. > > The rationale is that the check is already performed by > dev_pm_opp_of_add_table() and it isn't going to add *any* benefit to > check it again here. Such a check for matching compatible platforms is > normally fine, but not for this. This is like open coding part of > dev_pm_opp_of_add_table(), and so is redundant. The > dev_pm_opp_of_add_table() helper also checks for OPPv1 bindings in the > DT (yes you won't be using them on your platform) and so relying on > that API is a better thing to do. > > As you already said, you just wanted a better print message and so you > have added this check. If you really care only about the print > message, then you can add a print of your choice in the driver but > otherwise this check is not going to benefit you much I am afraid. > > Having said that, this isn't the code I maintain. I need to guarantee > that the OPP core APIs are used properly and are not misused and so I > have a higher say there. But in this case all I can do is _suggest_ > and not enforce. And as I said earlier, I suggest to drop this > redundant check in order to make your code better and faster. > > Thanks. > I took a closer look and turned out that devm_pm_opp_of_add_table() silently returns -ENODEV if OPP is missing in a DT. Hence indeed it should be good to drop the property-check. I'll improve it in the next revision, thank you.
