Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 28 Oct 2020 10:53:16 +0100 (CET) | From | Geert Uytterhoeven <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] opp: Don't always remove static OPPs in _of_add_opp_table_v1() |
| |
Hi Viresh,
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020, Viresh Kumar wrote: > The patch missed returning 0 early in case of success and hence the > static OPPs got removed by mistake. Fix it. > > Fixes: 90d46d71cce2 ("opp: Handle multiple calls for same OPP table in _of_add_opp_table_v1()") > Reported-by: Aisheng Dong <aisheng.dong@nxp.com> > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
This revives cpufreq on R-Car Gen2, and fixes a later s2ram regression in commit dc279ac6e5b4e06e ("cpufreq: dt: Refactor initialization to handle probe deferral properly"), where the PMIC is accessesed while the I2C controller is still suspended.
Tested-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>
> --- a/drivers/opp/of.c > +++ b/drivers/opp/of.c > @@ -944,6 +944,8 @@ static int _of_add_opp_table_v1(struct device *dev, struct opp_table *opp_table) > nr -= 2; > } > > + return 0; > + > remove_static_opp: > _opp_remove_all_static(opp_table); > > -- > 2.25.0.rc1.19.g042ed3e048af
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
-- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds
| |