Hi Kevin, Nishanth,
On 06/01/12 02:15, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Nishanth Menon <n...@ti.com> writes:
>
>> Commit 9fa2df6b90786301b175e264f5fa9846aba81a65
>> (ARM: OMAP2+: OPP: allow OPP enumeration to continue if device is not
>> present)
>> makes the logic:
>> for (i = 0; i < opp_def_size; i++) {
>> <snip>
>> if (!oh || !oh->od) {
>> <snip>
>> continue;
>> }
>> <snip>
>> opp_def++;
>> }
>>
>> In short, the moment we hit a "Bad OPP", we end up looping the list
>> comparing against the bad opp definition pointer for the rest of the
>> iteration count. Instead, increment opp_def in the for loop itself
>> and allow continue to be used in code without much thought so that
>> we check the next set of OPP definition pointers :)
>>
>> Cc: Kevin Hilman <khil...@ti.com>
>> Cc: Steve Sakoman <st...@sakoman.com>
>> Cc: Tony Lindgren <t...@atomide.com>
>> Cc: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org
>> Cc: linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Nishanth Menon <n...@ti.com>
>
> Good catch.
>
> Queuing for my next set of PM fixes for v3.5-rc (branch: for_3.5/fixes/pm-2)
I think this should also apply for stable, right?
If it should, can you please add a
Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org
?
Thanks
--
Regards,
Igor.
--
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
