Re: [PATCH] mmc: sdhci-msm: When dev_pm_opp_of_add_table() returns 0 it's not an error
On 28-08-20, 07:56, Doug Anderson wrote: > I've confirmed that the current mmc/next (with Viresh's new patch) no > longer breaks me. :-) > > $ git show --format=fuller linux_mmc/next | head -8 > commit 174e889d08aa54219b841464458f81d13fafec93 > Merge: c282fdb49b18 8048822bac01 > Author: Ulf Hansson > AuthorDate: Fri Aug 28 14:26:25 2020 +0200 > Commit: Ulf Hansson > CommitDate: Fri Aug 28 14:26:25 2020 +0200 > > Merge branch 'fixes' into next Well, it fixed someone's problem at least :) -- viresh
Re: [PATCH] mmc: sdhci-msm: When dev_pm_opp_of_add_table() returns 0 it's not an error
Hi,
On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 2:15 AM Naresh Kamboju
wrote:
>
> On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 at 01:57, Naresh Kamboju
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 at 21:03, Douglas Anderson
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > The commit d05a7238fe1c ("mmc: sdhci-msm: Unconditionally call
> > > dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table()") works fine in the case where there is
> > > no OPP table. However, if there is an OPP table then
> > > dev_pm_opp_of_add_table() will return 0. Since 0 != -ENODEV then the
> > > "if (ret != -ENODEV)" will evaluate to true and we'll fall into the
> > > error case. Oops.
> > >
> > > Let's fix this.
> > >
> > > Fixes: d05a7238fe1c ("mmc: sdhci-msm: Unconditionally call
> > > dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table()")
> > > Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson
> >
> > Reported-by: Naresh Kamboju
> >
> > I will test this patch and report again on this email thread.
>
> Sorry this patch did not solve the reported problem.
To be fair, I wasn't trying to. ;-) That's why I didn't add
Reported-by to my original patch. I was trying to solve problems I
was seeing myself and my patch did solve the problems I was seeing. I
only CCed you because I saw that you were having problems with the
same patch...
> However, I would be testing the V2 set from Viresh Kumar.
I've confirmed that the current mmc/next (with Viresh's new patch) no
longer breaks me. :-)
$ git show --format=fuller linux_mmc/next | head -8
commit 174e889d08aa54219b841464458f81d13fafec93
Merge: c282fdb49b18 8048822bac01
Author: Ulf Hansson
AuthorDate: Fri Aug 28 14:26:25 2020 +0200
Commit: Ulf Hansson
CommitDate: Fri Aug 28 14:26:25 2020 +0200
Merge branch 'fixes' into next
-Doug
Re: [PATCH] mmc: sdhci-msm: When dev_pm_opp_of_add_table() returns 0 it's not an error
On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 at 01:57, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
>
> On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 at 21:03, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> >
> > The commit d05a7238fe1c ("mmc: sdhci-msm: Unconditionally call
> > dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table()") works fine in the case where there is
> > no OPP table. However, if there is an OPP table then
> > dev_pm_opp_of_add_table() will return 0. Since 0 != -ENODEV then the
> > "if (ret != -ENODEV)" will evaluate to true and we'll fall into the
> > error case. Oops.
> >
> > Let's fix this.
> >
> > Fixes: d05a7238fe1c ("mmc: sdhci-msm: Unconditionally call
> > dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table()")
> > Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson
>
> Reported-by: Naresh Kamboju
>
> I will test this patch and report again on this email thread.
Sorry this patch did not solve the reported problem.
However, I would be testing the V2 set from Viresh Kumar.
and report the test results on the other patch set [1].
[1]
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pm/cover.1598594714.git.viresh.ku...@linaro.org
Re: [PATCH] mmc: sdhci-msm: When dev_pm_opp_of_add_table() returns 0 it's not an error
On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 at 07:09, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>
> On 27-08-20, 08:33, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> > The commit d05a7238fe1c ("mmc: sdhci-msm: Unconditionally call
> > dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table()") works fine in the case where there is
> > no OPP table. However, if there is an OPP table then
> > dev_pm_opp_of_add_table() will return 0. Since 0 != -ENODEV then the
> > "if (ret != -ENODEV)" will evaluate to true and we'll fall into the
> > error case. Oops.
> >
> > Let's fix this.
> >
> > Fixes: d05a7238fe1c ("mmc: sdhci-msm: Unconditionally call
> > dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table()")
> > Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson
> > ---
> >
> > drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c
> > index b7e47107a31a..55101dba42bd 100644
> > --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c
> > +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c
> > @@ -2284,7 +2284,7 @@ static int sdhci_msm_probe(struct platform_device
> > *pdev)
> >
> > /* OPP table is optional */
> > ret = dev_pm_opp_of_add_table(>dev);
> > - if (ret != -ENODEV) {
> > + if (ret && ret != -ENODEV) {
> > dev_err(>dev, "Invalid OPP table in Device tree\n");
> > goto opp_cleanup;
> > }
>
> Wow!
>
> How many bugs did I introduce with a simple patch :(
>
> @Ulf, since this is material for 5.10 I was planning to resend the
> original patch itself with all the things fixed. Will you be able to
> rebase your tree? Or do you want to apply fixes separately ?
I have rebased my tree, to get rid of the problems completely.
Thanks everybody for helping out!
Kind regards
Uffe
Re: [PATCH] mmc: sdhci-msm: When dev_pm_opp_of_add_table() returns 0 it's not an error
On 27-08-20, 08:33, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> The commit d05a7238fe1c ("mmc: sdhci-msm: Unconditionally call
> dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table()") works fine in the case where there is
> no OPP table. However, if there is an OPP table then
> dev_pm_opp_of_add_table() will return 0. Since 0 != -ENODEV then the
> "if (ret != -ENODEV)" will evaluate to true and we'll fall into the
> error case. Oops.
>
> Let's fix this.
>
> Fixes: d05a7238fe1c ("mmc: sdhci-msm: Unconditionally call
> dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table()")
> Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson
> ---
>
> drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c
> index b7e47107a31a..55101dba42bd 100644
> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c
> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c
> @@ -2284,7 +2284,7 @@ static int sdhci_msm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>
> /* OPP table is optional */
> ret = dev_pm_opp_of_add_table(>dev);
> - if (ret != -ENODEV) {
> + if (ret && ret != -ENODEV) {
> dev_err(>dev, "Invalid OPP table in Device tree\n");
> goto opp_cleanup;
> }
Wow!
How many bugs did I introduce with a simple patch :(
@Ulf, since this is material for 5.10 I was planning to resend the
original patch itself with all the things fixed. Will you be able to
rebase your tree? Or do you want to apply fixes separately ?
--
viresh
Re: [PATCH] mmc: sdhci-msm: When dev_pm_opp_of_add_table() returns 0 it's not an error
On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 at 21:03, Douglas Anderson wrote:
>
> The commit d05a7238fe1c ("mmc: sdhci-msm: Unconditionally call
> dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table()") works fine in the case where there is
> no OPP table. However, if there is an OPP table then
> dev_pm_opp_of_add_table() will return 0. Since 0 != -ENODEV then the
> "if (ret != -ENODEV)" will evaluate to true and we'll fall into the
> error case. Oops.
>
> Let's fix this.
>
> Fixes: d05a7238fe1c ("mmc: sdhci-msm: Unconditionally call
> dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table()")
> Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson
Reported-by: Naresh Kamboju
I will test this patch and report again on this email thread.
> ---
>
> drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c
> index b7e47107a31a..55101dba42bd 100644
> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c
> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c
> @@ -2284,7 +2284,7 @@ static int sdhci_msm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>
> /* OPP table is optional */
> ret = dev_pm_opp_of_add_table(>dev);
> - if (ret != -ENODEV) {
> + if (ret && ret != -ENODEV) {
> dev_err(>dev, "Invalid OPP table in Device tree\n");
> goto opp_cleanup;
> }
> --
> 2.28.0.297.g1956fa8f8d-goog
>
- Naresh
