On 13-01-17, 00:52, Stephen Boyd wrote: > What still doesn't make sense is how an individual OPP could go > away without the table that the OPP lives in also going away.
dev_pm_opp_remove() is one such option, which can remove OPPs individually. Over that, while remove tables we remove all the OPPs one by one. So that really does happen. > If > an OPP is going away while a driver has a reference to it, then > the driver using that OPP should probably not be using it. That is being protected with this patch now and the drivers can use them freely. > TL;DR > letting drivers use OPP pointers outside of the OPP core feels > racy. Hmm, we don't update the OPP a lot after creating it today. But that's a different problem to solve, if we really see a race there. -- viresh