-----Original Message-----
From: ilialin@codeaurora.org <redacted>
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2018 10:51
To: 'Viresh Kumar' <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>; 'Amit Kucheria'
[off-list ref]
Cc: 'Michael Turquette' <mturquette@baylibre.com>; 'sboyd@kernel.org'
[off-list ref]; 'Rob Herring' [off-list ref]; 'Mark Rutland'
[off-list ref]; 'nm@ti.com' [off-list ref];
'lgirdwood@gmail.com' [off-list ref]; 'broonie@kernel.org'
[off-list ref]; 'Andy Gross' [off-list ref]; 'David Brown'
[off-list ref]; 'catalin.marinas@arm.com'
[off-list ref]; 'will.deacon@arm.com'
[off-list ref]; 'Rafael J. Wysocki' [off-list ref]; 'linux-
clk@vger.kernel.org' [off-list ref];
'devicetree@vger.kernel.org' [off-list ref]; 'LKML' <linux-
kernel@vger.kernel.org>; 'Linux PM list' [off-list ref];

'linux-

arm-msm@vger.kernel.org' [off-list ref]; 'linux-
soc@vger.kernel.org' [off-list ref]; 'lakml' <linux-arm-
kernel@lists.infradead.org>; 'Rajendra Nayak' [off-list ref];
'nicolas.dechesne@linaro.org' [off-list ref];
'celster@codeaurora.org' [off-list ref];
'tfinkel@codeaurora.org' [off-list ref]
Subject: RE: [PATCH v7 12/14] cpufreq: Add Kryo CPU scaling driver

quoted

-----Original Message-----
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 17:12
To: Amit Kucheria <redacted>
Cc: Ilia Lin <redacted>; Michael Turquette
[off-list ref]; sboyd@kernel.org; Rob Herring
[off-list ref]; Mark Rutland [off-list ref]; nm@ti.com;
lgirdwood@gmail.com; broonie@kernel.org; Andy Gross
[off-list ref]; David Brown [off-list ref];
catalin.marinas@arm.com; will.deacon@arm.com; Rafael J. Wysocki
[off-list ref]; linux-clk@vger.kernel.org;
devicetree@vger.kernel.org; LKML [off-list ref]; Linux
PM list [off-list ref]; linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org;
linux- soc@vger.kernel.org; lakml
[off-list ref];
Rajendra Nayak [off-list ref]; nicolas.dechesne@linaro.org;
celster@codeaurora.org; tfinkel@codeaurora.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 12/14] cpufreq: Add Kryo CPU scaling driver

On 16-05-18, 16:12, Amit Kucheria wrote:

quoted

quoted

+       ret = PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(opp_temp =
+

dev_pm_opp_set_supported_hw(cpu_dev,&versions,1));

quoted

quoted

+       if (0 > ret)

Any particular reason to prefer this over (ret < 0) that is
generally used? I've seen it used to avoid the == vs. = typos, but
not for other comparisons.

Suggest sticking to what is commonly used i.e. ret < 0.

quoted

+               goto free_opp;
+
+       cpu_dev = get_cpu_device(GOLD_LEAD);

Error check cpu_dev here?

quoted

+       ret = PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(opp_temp =
+

dev_pm_opp_set_supported_hw(cpu_dev,&versions,1));

quoted

quoted

+       if (0 > ret)
+               goto free_opp;

The goto here is wrong

If we are here, then the first dev_pm_opp_set_supported_hw() succeeded.
And should be deallocated before exit with error.

My bad. Got you.

quoted

quoted

quoted

+
+
+       ret =

PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(platform_device_register_simple("cpufreq-dt",

quoted

quoted

+                                                             -1,
+ NULL, 0));
+
+       if (0 == ret)
+               return 0;
+
+free_opp:
+       dev_pm_opp_put_supported_hw(opp_temp);

This is not needed because dev_pm_opp_set_supported_hw will free
memory in case of failure. This call in only needed in case of a
successful get.

But this is still required for the case where platform device

registration fails.

quoted

--
viresh