Nishanth Menon <n...@ti.com> writes: > On 10:26-20120316, Maximilian Schwerin wrote: > [...] >> > >>> + >> > >>> + if ((strcmp(opp_def->hwmod_name,"iva") == >> > 0) && !omap3_has_iva()) >> > >>> + continue; >> > >>> + >> > >>> oh = omap_hwmod_lookup(opp_def->hwmod_name); >> > >>> if (!oh || !oh->od) { >> > >>> pr_warn("%s: no hwmod or odev for %s, [%d] " >> > >> >> > >> Wouldn't the one-liner below do the same thing? >> > >> >> > >> Actually, your patch makes it less noisy at boot time, avoiding the >> > >> pr_warn(), so is probably better. >> > > >> > > The only issue i have with current patch is that it >> > focusses to solve >> > > a specific device IVA. >> > > we could have similar variances if we had SGX/AESS device etc >> > > registered in the common >> > > table. a generic solution might be preferable - could we reduce the >> > > severity of pr_warn to pr_debug and do a continue instead? >> > >> > I agree, that would be a better generic solution. >> > >> > Kevin >> > >> >> This is a pragmatic and simple solution for a well understood problem with >> no side effects. Why not fix the problem now and do the generic solution >> later on? >> >> I'm not a fulltime kernel dev. I have about two weeks to get my new board >> out to my customer... Every time I set up a new board, I have to fix >> problems using known patches that are sometimes years old. Every patch I >> have to find costs me hours of time I really don't have. >> >> Just my two cents (euro cents of course :-), Maximilian > ok, so lets fix it generically - here is the patch for it. Let us know > if this works for you > > > From 5275d09c9f1a16c8f0814745e1c313c6cca049f6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Nishanth Menon <n...@ti.com> > Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 09:13:24 -0500 > Subject: [PATCH] OMAP2+: OPP: allow OPP enumeration to continue if device is > not present > > On platforms such as OMAP3, certain variants may not have IVA, SGX > or some specific component. We currently have a check to aid fixing > wrong population of OPP entries for issues such as typos. This however > causes a conflict with valid requirement where the SoC variant does > not actually have the module present. > > So, reduce the severity of the print to a debug statement and skip > registering that specific OPP, but continue down the list. > > Reported-by: Steve Sakoman <st...@sakoman.com> > Reported-by: Maximilian Schwerin <m...@tigris.de> > Signed-off-by: Nishanth Menon <n...@ti.com> > --- > arch/arm/mach-omap2/opp.c | 4 ++-- > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/opp.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/opp.c > index 9262a6b..de6d464 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/opp.c > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/opp.c > @@ -64,10 +64,10 @@ int __init omap_init_opp_table(struct omap_opp_def > *opp_def, > } > oh = omap_hwmod_lookup(opp_def->hwmod_name); > if (!oh || !oh->od) { > - pr_warn("%s: no hwmod or odev for %s, [%d] " > + pr_debug("%s: no hwmod or odev for %s, [%d] " > "cannot add OPPs.\n", __func__, > opp_def->hwmod_name, i); > - return -EINVAL; > + continue; > } > dev = &oh->od->pdev->dev; >
Yes, thanks for doing this more genericly. Nishanth, can you collect the acks/tested-bys and repost and official patch. I'll queue this up. Thanks, Kevin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html