On 25 July 2013 22:03, Lukasz Majewski <[email protected]> wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c
> b/drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c
> index 9ae1871..175172d9 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c
> @@ -270,6 +270,9 @@ static int exynos_cpufreq_cpu_exit(struct cpufreq_policy
> *policy)
>
> static struct freq_attr *exynos_cpufreq_attr[] = {
> &cpufreq_freq_attr_scaling_available_freqs,
> +#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_BOOST_SW
Use ARM_EXYNOS_CPU_FREQ_BOOST_SW instead.
> + &cpufreq_freq_attr_scaling_boost_freqs,
> +#endif
> NULL,
> };
>
> @@ -332,6 +335,9 @@ static int __init exynos_cpufreq_probe(struct
> platform_device *pdev)
>
> locking_frequency = exynos_getspeed(0);
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_BOOST_SW
> + exynos_driver.boost_supported = true;
> +#endif
So, why here and not in the definition of exynos_driver?
> register_pm_notifier(&exynos_cpufreq_nb);
>
> if (cpufreq_register_driver(&exynos_driver)) {
> --
> 1.7.10.4
>
--
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/
