On 20 May 2014 17:35, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Though after more thought into this I feel this must also be done:
>
> diff --git a/drivers/base/power/opp.c b/drivers/base/power/opp.c
> index bdf09f5..3f540d8 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/power/opp.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/power/opp.c
> @@ -453,9 +453,13
On 20 May 2014 18:02, Nishanth Menon wrote:
>> + if (new_opp->u_volt == opp->u_volt)
>> + ret = -EEXIST;
As I mentioned in the other mail in same thread, I screwed up
again. I meant a s/==/!= here..
In words:
- If we are adding duplicate OPPs (both freq/volt
On 05/20/2014 08:31 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 20 May 2014 17:35, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> Though after more thought into this I feel this must also be done:
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/base/power/opp.c b/drivers/base/power/opp.c
>> index bdf09f5..3f540d8 100644
>> --- a/drivers/base/power/opp.c
On 20 May 2014 18:15, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> int ret = new_opp->u_volt == opp->u_volt ? -EEXIST : 0;
>
> would be slightly simpler IMO.
Much better :)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 20 May 2014 16:56, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> But we aren't talking about failure here. Its not failure. The operation
>> we are trying to do is already done and nothing should break if the
>> OPP was already there or its added now. Its all
On Tuesday, May 20, 2014 05:35:04 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 20 May 2014 16:56, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > But we aren't talking about failure here. Its not failure. The operation
> > we are trying to do is already done and nothing should break if the
> > OPP was already there or its added now. Its
On 20 May 2014 16:56, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> But we aren't talking about failure here. Its not failure. The operation
> we are trying to do is already done and nothing should break if the
> OPP was already there or its added now. Its all the same.
Though after more thought into this I feel this
On 20 May 2014 16:54, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> That is upto the caller. returning 0 for an operation we were supposed
> to do, but due to error checks, did not do, implies we need to provide
> appropriate error back to caller. caller may choose to act upon the
> error and do something OR not -
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 11:00 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>
> I have asked this on the earlier thread as well, let me ask it again.
> What would callers do on return value of EEXIST ? Is there anything
> special we may want to handle ?
That is upto the caller. returning 0 for an operation we were
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 11:00 PM, Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org wrote:
I have asked this on the earlier thread as well, let me ask it again.
What would callers do on return value of EEXIST ? Is there anything
special we may want to handle ?
That is upto the caller. returning 0 for an
On 20 May 2014 16:54, Nishanth Menon n...@ti.com wrote:
That is upto the caller. returning 0 for an operation we were supposed
to do, but due to error checks, did not do, implies we need to provide
appropriate error back to caller. caller may choose to act upon the
error and do something OR
On 20 May 2014 16:56, Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org wrote:
But we aren't talking about failure here. Its not failure. The operation
we are trying to do is already done and nothing should break if the
OPP was already there or its added now. Its all the same.
Though after more thought
On Tuesday, May 20, 2014 05:35:04 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 20 May 2014 16:56, Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org wrote:
But we aren't talking about failure here. Its not failure. The operation
we are trying to do is already done and nothing should break if the
OPP was already there or
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org wrote:
On 20 May 2014 16:56, Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org wrote:
But we aren't talking about failure here. Its not failure. The operation
we are trying to do is already done and nothing should break if the
OPP was
On 20 May 2014 18:15, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@rjwysocki.net wrote:
int ret = new_opp-u_volt == opp-u_volt ? -EEXIST : 0;
would be slightly simpler IMO.
Much better :)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to
On 05/20/2014 08:31 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 20 May 2014 17:35, Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org wrote:
Though after more thought into this I feel this must also be done:
diff --git a/drivers/base/power/opp.c b/drivers/base/power/opp.c
index bdf09f5..3f540d8 100644
---
On 20 May 2014 18:02, Nishanth Menon n...@ti.com wrote:
+ if (new_opp-u_volt == opp-u_volt)
+ ret = -EEXIST;
As I mentioned in the other mail in same thread, I screwed up
again. I meant a s/==/!= here..
In words:
- If we are adding duplicate OPPs (both
On 20 May 2014 17:35, Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org wrote:
Though after more thought into this I feel this must also be done:
diff --git a/drivers/base/power/opp.c b/drivers/base/power/opp.c
index bdf09f5..3f540d8 100644
--- a/drivers/base/power/opp.c
+++ b/drivers/base/power/opp.c
On 19 May 2014 18:38, Nishanth Menon wrote:
>> + if (new_opp->rate == opp->rate) {
>> + mutex_unlock(_opp_list_lock);
>> + kfree(new_opp);
>> + return 0;
>
> IF we decide on ensuring that the OPP additions are done one time[1] -
Fingers crossed :)
But
On 05/16/2014 04:00 AM, Chander Kashyap wrote:
> From: Chander Kashyap
>
> This patch detects the duplicate OPP entries and discards them
>
> Signed-off-by: Chander Kashyap
> Signed-off-by: Inderpal Singh
> ---
> Changes in v3:
> - Modify the commit log
> Changes in v2:
> -
On 19 May 2014 18:38, Nishanth Menon n...@ti.com wrote:
+ if (new_opp-rate == opp-rate) {
+ mutex_unlock(dev_opp_list_lock);
+ kfree(new_opp);
+ return 0;
IF we decide on ensuring that the OPP additions are done one time[1] -
Fingers crossed :)
But
On 05/16/2014 04:00 AM, Chander Kashyap wrote:
From: Chander Kashyap k.chan...@samsung.com
This patch detects the duplicate OPP entries and discards them
Signed-off-by: Chander Kashyap k.chan...@samsung.com
Signed-off-by: Inderpal Singh inderpa...@samsung.com
---
Changes in v3:
-
On 16 May 2014 14:30, Chander Kashyap wrote:
> From: Chander Kashyap
>
> This patch detects the duplicate OPP entries and discards them
I wish this would have been a bit more explanatory :)
> Signed-off-by: Chander Kashyap
> Signed-off-by: Inderpal Singh
> ---
> Changes in v3:
> -
From: Chander Kashyap
This patch detects the duplicate OPP entries and discards them
Signed-off-by: Chander Kashyap
Signed-off-by: Inderpal Singh
---
Changes in v3:
- Modify the commit log
Changes in v2:
- Reorder check for duplicate opp
drivers/base/power/opp.c | 13
From: Chander Kashyap k.chan...@samsung.com
This patch detects the duplicate OPP entries and discards them
Signed-off-by: Chander Kashyap k.chan...@samsung.com
Signed-off-by: Inderpal Singh inderpa...@samsung.com
---
Changes in v3:
- Modify the commit log
Changes in v2:
-
On 16 May 2014 14:30, Chander Kashyap chander.kash...@linaro.org wrote:
From: Chander Kashyap k.chan...@samsung.com
This patch detects the duplicate OPP entries and discards them
I wish this would have been a bit more explanatory :)
Signed-off-by: Chander Kashyap k.chan...@samsung.com
26 matches
Mail list logo
