On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 2:03 AM, Igor Grinberg [off-list ref] wrote:
On 06/01/12 02:15, Kevin Hilman wrote:
quoted
Nishanth Menon [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
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 <redacted>
Cc: Steve Sakoman <redacted>
Cc: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>
Cc: linux-omap at vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
Signed-off-by: Nishanth Menon <nm@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: stable at vger.kernel.org
I would like to think so, but punting over to Kevin on that decision.
Regards,
Nishanth Menon