On 11-08-15, 17:43, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > @@ -1323,28 +1323,29 @@ static int _of_init_opp_table_v2(struct device *dev,
> > if (ret) {
> > dev_err(dev, "%s: Failed to add OPP, %d\n", __func__,
> > ret);
> > - break;
> > + goto free_table;
> > }
> > }
> >
> > /* There should be one of more OPP defined */
> > - if (WARN_ON(!count))
> > + if (WARN_ON(!count)) {
> > + ret = -ENOENT;
> > goto put_opp_np;
> > + }
The purpose of 'count' here is to see if the dtb contained any OPP
nodes or not. i.e. if we ever entered the body of
for_each_available_child_of_node() or not..
Its different than, "if we were able to add any OPPs";
> This is weird to me, because we are going backwards. What happens if
> we goto free_table without adding anything?
It will WARN() today.
> I suspect it's fine, but if
> it's a bug then this code still has problems.
I don't think we have a bug here, we never added anything and so don't
need to free it.
> What about if we only increment count when _opp_add_static_v2()
> succeeds
That's not what we want.
--
viresh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
