On 26 February 2014 02:41, Saravana Kannan <skan...@codeaurora.org> wrote: > On 02/25/2014 05:04 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> On Tuesday, February 25, 2014 02:20:57 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> I think there's been a misunderstanding of what I'm proposing. The reference > to policy->clk is only to get rid of the dependency that > cpufreq_generic_get() has on the per cpu policy variable being filled. You > can do that by just removing calls to get _IF_ clk is filled in. cpufreq_cpu_get() can be called by other drivers as well, which may not have clock interface implemented for them. We can't stop them from calling it. > I'll look at the patches later today and respond. Although, I would have > been nice you had helped me fix any issues with my patch than coming up with > new ones. Kinda removes to motivation for submitting patches upstream. Sorry if I demotivated you at all :) I just wanted to get to a quick-fix and wasn't interested in getting my patch count up. Thought that isn't always bad :) I sent my patches as they were very different then your approach. Obviously, I wouldn't have done this otherwise :) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
