2020-10-14 09:22:51

by Viresh Kumar

Subject: [PATCH] opp: Don't always remove static OPPs in _of_add_opp_table_v1()

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 <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <[email protected]>
---
drivers/opp/of.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/opp/of.c b/drivers/opp/of.c
index 874b58756220..9faeb83e4b32 100644
--- 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

2020-10-15 04:22:51

by Aisheng Dong

Subject: RE: [PATCH] opp: Don't always remove static OPPs in _of_add_opp_table_v1()

Hi Viresh

Thanks for the quick fix.

> From: Viresh Kumar <[email protected]>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 12:26 PM
>
> 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 <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <[email protected]>

Tested-by: Dong Aisheng <[email protected]>

Regards
Aisheng

> ---
> drivers/opp/of.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/opp/of.c b/drivers/opp/of.c index
> 874b58756220..9faeb83e4b32 100644
> --- 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

2020-10-15 05:10:09

by Viresh Kumar

Subject: Re: [PATCH] opp: Don't always remove static OPPs in _of_add_opp_table_v1()

On 15-10-20, 02:35, Aisheng Dong wrote:
> Hi Viresh
>
> Thanks for the quick fix.
>
> > From: Viresh Kumar <[email protected]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 12:26 PM
> >
> > 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 <[email protected]>
> > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <[email protected]>
>
> Tested-by: Dong Aisheng <[email protected]>

Thanks.

Rafael: Please apply this one directly for 5.10-rc. Thanks.

--
viresh

2020-10-20 19:18:27

by Viresh Kumar

Subject: Re: [PATCH] opp: Don't always remove static OPPs in _of_add_opp_table_v1()

On 15-10-20, 10:01, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 15-10-20, 02:35, Aisheng Dong wrote:
> > Hi Viresh
> >
> > Thanks for the quick fix.
> >
> > > From: Viresh Kumar <[email protected]>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 12:26 PM
> > >
> > > 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 <[email protected]>
> > > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <[email protected]>
> >
> > Tested-by: Dong Aisheng <[email protected]>
>
> Thanks.
>
> Rafael: Please apply this one directly for 5.10-rc. Thanks.

Rafael: Ping.

--
viresh

2020-10-28 21:43:35

by 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 <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <[email protected]>

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 <[email protected]>

> --- 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 -- [email protected]

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