Hi guys,
One of Ben's patches ("ppc32: Fix cpufreq problems") went in 2.6.12-
rc3, but it depended on another patch that's still in -mm only:
add-suspend-method-to-cpufreq-core.patch
In addition to this, there's a third patch in -mm that fixes warnings
and line length to the previous patch, but it doesn't apply cleanly
anymore. It's named add-suspend-method-to-cpufreq-core-warning-fix.patch
Here's an updated version. HTH,
Signed-off-by: Colin Leroy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c 2005-04-21 09:14:28.000000000 +0200
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c 2005-04-21 09:18:11.000000000 +0200
@@ -955,7 +955,6 @@
{
int cpu = sysdev->id;
unsigned int ret = 0;
- unsigned int cur_freq = 0;
struct cpufreq_policy *cpu_policy;
dprintk("resuming cpu %u\n", cpu);
@@ -995,21 +994,24 @@
cur_freq = cpufreq_driver->get(cpu_policy->cpu);
if (!cur_freq || !cpu_policy->cur) {
- printk(KERN_ERR "cpufreq: resume failed to assert
current frequency is what timing core thinks it is.\n");
+ printk(KERN_ERR "cpufreq: resume failed to assert "
+ "current frequency is what timing core "
+ "thinks it is.\n");
goto out;
}
if (unlikely(cur_freq != cpu_policy->cur)) {
struct cpufreq_freqs freqs;
- printk(KERN_WARNING "Warning: CPU frequency is %u, "
- "cpufreq assumed %u kHz.\n", cur_freq,
cpu_policy->cur);
+ printk(KERN_WARNING "Warning: CPU frequency is %u,
cpufreq assumed "
+ "%u kHz.\n", cur_freq,
cpu_policy->cur);
freqs.cpu = cpu;
freqs.old = cpu_policy->cur;
freqs.new = cur_freq;
- notifier_call_chain(&cpufreq_transition_notifier_list,
CPUFREQ_RESUMECHANGE, &freqs);
+ notifier_call_chain(&cpufreq_transition_notifier_list,
+ CPUFREQ_RESUMECHANGE, &freqs);
adjust_jiffies(CPUFREQ_RESUMECHANGE, &freqs);
cpu_policy->cur = cur_freq;
-
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/
