18.01.2021 10:44, Viresh Kumar пишет:
> On 18-01-21, 03:55, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>> Fix adding OPP entries in a wrong (opposite) order if OPP rate is
>> unavailable. The OPP comparison was erroneously skipped, thus OPPs
>> were left unsorted.
>>
>> Tested-by: Peter Geis <pgwipe...@gmail.com>
>> Tested-by: Nicolas Chauvet <kwiz...@gmail.com>
>> Tested-by: Matt Merhar <mattmer...@protonmail.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <dig...@gmail.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/opp/core.c | 10 ++++------
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/opp/core.c b/drivers/opp/core.c
>> index dfc4208d3f87..48618ff3e99e 100644
>> --- a/drivers/opp/core.c
>> +++ b/drivers/opp/core.c
>> @@ -1527,12 +1527,10 @@ int _opp_add(struct device *dev, struct dev_pm_opp
>> *new_opp,
>> mutex_lock(&opp_table->lock);
>> head = &opp_table->opp_list;
>>
>> - if (likely(!rate_not_available)) {
>> - ret = _opp_is_duplicate(dev, new_opp, opp_table, &head);
>> - if (ret) {
>> - mutex_unlock(&opp_table->lock);
>> - return ret;
>> - }
>> + ret = _opp_is_duplicate(dev, new_opp, opp_table, &head);
>> + if (ret) {
>> + mutex_unlock(&opp_table->lock);
>> + return ret;
>> }
>>
>> list_add(&new_opp->node, head);
>
> Applied. Thanks.
>
> I am not sending it for 5.11-rc as there shouldn't be any users which
> are impacted because of this right now, right ?
>
right
