From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FCAAC433DF for ; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 15:34:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF6C5207C4 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 15:34:12 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gerhold.net header.i=@gerhold.net header.b="nrSdxWcq" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2408027AbgJPPeM (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Oct 2020 11:34:12 -0400 Received: from mo4-p01-ob.smtp.rzone.de ([81.169.146.167]:22431 "EHLO mo4-p01-ob.smtp.rzone.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2404562AbgJPPeM (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Oct 2020 11:34:12 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 351 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 11:34:11 EDT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1602862450; s=strato-dkim-0002; d=gerhold.net; h=In-Reply-To:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date: X-RZG-CLASS-ID:X-RZG-AUTH:From:Subject:Sender; bh=RHHm2GRiu7U5GkLRxa3++Z6B/X0hzwPc1UHjyWgcsfg=; b=nrSdxWcqrD50uqIp2ndzW7e5EIk9QXJpHOlU2iNOpAgG8jtRXJJkY0FTB7lLF5Nf/w jc/MGdbxWzJmq5dcuDGuFQYd4D1uLt0MoBA3TqtRa+KkOLNsv9dj/r9nRDflXqNESWar Q6y55cDbL81y5wrQjFhbPkR44tRSwPj0bcK6SaH5Sa9dP7WGR4nVYRLtPDP+xMKgXh4p 0hR9Y28nsuHJ8tkFtdTAMO5s4mchEu5GSB+QYGcJU36d/iyUVNm0ubxcam1ROYi+Wubd G9Cf9akgrGr+bPO+1OEKIUEIIHtvMPCTjNqBHC7GUMxPHkA3dtVP5vsTHQ6XCEjjMxLT tmeg== X-RZG-AUTH: ":P3gBZUipdd93FF5ZZvYFPugejmSTVR2nRPhVOQ/OcYgojyw4j34+u26zEodhPgRDZ8jxIc2p" X-RZG-CLASS-ID: mo00 Received: from gerhold.net by smtp.strato.de (RZmta 47.2.1 DYNA|AUTH) with ESMTPSA id 509a5aw9GFS7bjx (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate); Fri, 16 Oct 2020 17:28:07 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 17:28:02 +0200 From: Stephan Gerhold To: Sudeep Holla Cc: Viresh Kumar , ulf.hansson@linaro.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Kevin Hilman , Pavel Machek , Len Brown , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Viresh Kumar , Nishanth Menon , Stephen Boyd , Kukjin Kim , Krzysztof Kozlowski , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Vincent Guittot , nks@flawful.org, georgi.djakov@linaro.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] opp: Allow dev_pm_opp_get_opp_table() to return -EPROBE_DEFER Message-ID: <20201016152802.GA3966@gerhold.net> References: <24ff92dd1b0ee1b802b45698520f2937418f8094.1598260050.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org> <20201015180555.gacdzkofpibkdn2e@bogus> <20201016042434.org6ibdqsqbzcdww@vireshk-i7> <20201016060021.sotk72u4hioctg7o@bogus> <20201016111222.lvakbmjhlrocpogt@bogus> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20201016111222.lvakbmjhlrocpogt@bogus> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 12:12:22PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote: > On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 07:00:21AM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 09:54:34AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > On 15-10-20, 19:05, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > > > OK, this breaks with SCMI which doesn't provide clocks but manage OPPs > > > > directly. Before this change clk_get(dev..) was allowed to fail and > > > > --EPROBE_DEFER was not an error. > > > > > > I think the change in itself is fine. We should be returning from > > > there if we get EPROBE_DEFER. The question is rather why are you > > > getting EPROBE_DEFER here ? > > > > > > > Ah OK, I didn't spend too much time, saw -EPROBE_DEFER, just reverted > > this patch and it worked. I need to check it in detail yet. > > > > You confused me earlier. As I said there will be no clock provider > registered for SCMI CPU/Dev DVFS. > opp_table->clk = clk_get(dev, NULL); > will always return -EPROBE_DEFER as there is no clock provider for dev. Shouldn't it return -ENOENT if there is no clock for the SCMI case? With -EPROBE_DEFER I would expect that it shows up at some point. I tried to avoid a situation like this by ignoring all errors != -EPROBE_DEFER. So if clk_get(dev, NULL) would return -ENOENT everything should work as expected... Thanks, Stephan