On 12:44-20130920, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 20 September 2013 02:33, Nishanth Menon <n...@ti.com> wrote:
> > opp_get_opp_count
> > opp_find_freq_exact
> > opp_init_cpufreq_table
> > opp_free_cpufreq_table
>
> The only problem I see is that routines names for few of them are getting
> really long now.. Otherwise not much I could find...
I am open to suggestions if any one feels we can improve this better.
>
> Though you had following changes, which you could have avoided in this
> hard to review patchset:
>
> diff --git a/drivers/base/power/opp.c b/drivers/base/power/opp.c
> new_opp = [-kzalloc(sizeof(struct
> opp),-]{+kzalloc(sizeof(*new_opp),+} GFP_KERNEL);
> new_opp = [-kmalloc(sizeof(struct
> opp),-]{+kmalloc(sizeof(*new_opp),+} GFP_KERNEL);
>
> It is almost impossible to catch these with naked eyes for such long
> patches.. I took help of --word-diff though :)
I believe that change was from Patch #2[1]
yes, you are right, I had squashed this patch in to squelch checkpatch
warnings:
CHECK: Prefer kzalloc(sizeof(*new_opp)...) over kzalloc(sizeof(struct
dev_pm_opp)...)
#177: FILE: drivers/base/power/opp.c:406:
+ new_opp = kzalloc(sizeof(struct dev_pm_opp), GFP_KERNEL);
CHECK: Prefer kmalloc(sizeof(*new_opp)...) over kmalloc(sizeof(struct
dev_pm_opp)...)
#191: FILE: drivers/base/power/opp.c:495:
+ new_opp = kmalloc(sizeof(struct dev_pm_opp), GFP_KERNEL);
I had added a comment:
" Minor checkpatch warning fixes as a result of this change was fixed as
well."
Would you suggest I split the change off to a separate patch or improve
the comment a little more?
>
> If no one else sees these as problems then feel free to add my:
> Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.ku...@linaro.org>
[1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/2913551/
--
Regards,
Nishanth Menon
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
