On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 13:07, Viresh Kumar [off-list ref] wrote:

On 31-08-20, 12:57, Ulf Hansson wrote:

quoted

On Mon, 31 Aug 2020 at 12:45, Viresh Kumar [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 28-08-20, 10:43, Ulf Hansson wrote:

quoted

On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 at 08:08, Viresh Kumar [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table() doesn't report any errors when it fails to
find the OPP table with error -ENODEV (i.e. OPP table not present for
the device). And we can call dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table()
unconditionally here.

Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>

Replaced v1 with v2 on my next branch, thanks!

Just to be sure, this patch doesn't depend on any changes for the opp
core that are queued for v5.10?

The recent crashes reported by Anders and Naresh were related to a OPP
core bug, for which I have just sent the fix here:

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/922ff0759a16299e24cacfc981ac07914d8f1826.1598865786.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org/ (local)

This is already tested by Naresh now and finally everything works as
expected.

I am going to get this fix merged in 5.9-rc4, but we do have a
dependency now with that fix.

What's the best way to handle this stuff now ? The easiest IMO would
be for me to send these patches through the OPP tree, otherwise people
need to carry this and the OPP fix (for which I can provide the
branch/tag).

No need for a tag/branch to be shared. Instead I am simply going to
defer to pick up any related changes for mmc, until I can rebase my
tree on an rc[n] that contains your fix.

When that is possible, please re-post the mmc patches.

The dependency patch got merged in 5.9-rc4. Do you still want me to
resend this patch or you can apply it directly from here ?

Please re-submit, then I will pick it from the patchtracker.

Kind regards
Uffe