On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 6:43 PM, Jonghwan Choi <jhbird.c...@samsung.com> wrote: > Hi
Please dont top post. it is usually frowned upon. > > My holiday is finished. > > I implemented another cpufreq driver. And that driver also have to use > exynos_sort_descend_freq_table(). > Then exynos5440 and new cpufreq have a duplicate > function.(exynos_sort_descend_freq_table(). > So I want to solve it. As discussed in the thread, creating stuff that are common into a common file, and even isolating this into cpufreq specific solution might be good. [1] now moves that entire logic of table creation to be cpufreq specific - we could consider modifier functions to them. In some quick tests by reversing table [2], I cant see any difference in behavior in ascending[3] or descending[4] order of the cpufreq table. So, we could do [2] as default as well, if it is determined to impact no one else making any form of assumptions on table ordering - but it might be preferable for drivers not to depend on framework ordering of data as things could change in the future. [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4115141/ + https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4115101/ [2] http://slexy.org/view/s21HyCUhXK [3] http://slexy.org/view/s202xTUG59 [4] http://slexy.org/view/s20ewFa6PW Regards, Nishanth Menon -- 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/