<excessive quoting trimmed, please don't quote 40K of text
to add a single line reply>
On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 12:01:56AM +0200, roel wrote:
> > --- a/arch/i386/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/powernow-k6.c
> > +++ b/arch/i386/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/powernow-k6.c
> > @@ -215,7 +215,7 @@ static struct cpufreq_driver powernow_k6
> > */
> > static int __init powernow_k6_init(void)
> > {
> > - struct cpuinfo_x86 *c = cpu_data;
> > + struct cpuinfo_x86 *c = &cpu_data(0);
> >
> > if ((c->x86_vendor != X86_VENDOR_AMD) || (c->x86 != 5) ||
> > ((c->x86_model != 12) && (c->x86_model != 13)))
>
> while we're at it, we could change this to
>
> if (!(c->x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_AMD && c->x86 == 5 &&
> (c->x86_model == 12 || c->x86_model == 13)))
For what purpose? There's nothing wrong with the code as it stands,
and inverting the tests means we'd have to move a bunch of
code inside the if arm instead of just returning -ENODEV.
Dave
--
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
