On 02-06-16, 19:02, Javi Merino wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 09:06:26PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 2 June 2016 at 20:29, Javi Merino wrote:
> > > In 5a31d594a973 ("cpufreq: Allow freq_table to be obtained for offline
> > > CPUs") you did the opposite: don't use cpufreq_cpu_get_raw() bec
On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 09:06:26PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 2 June 2016 at 20:29, Javi Merino wrote:
> > In 5a31d594a973 ("cpufreq: Allow freq_table to be obtained for offline
> > CPUs") you did the opposite: don't use cpufreq_cpu_get_raw() because
> > it won't give you the policy of a cpu
On 2 June 2016 at 20:29, Javi Merino wrote:
> In 5a31d594a973 ("cpufreq: Allow freq_table to be obtained for offline
> CPUs") you did the opposite: don't use cpufreq_cpu_get_raw() because
> it won't give you the policy of a cpu that is offline. Now you are
> arguing that we should go back to cpuf
Hi Viresh,
On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 07:34:56PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Most of the callers of cpufreq_frequency_get_table() already have the
> pointer to a valid 'policy' structure and they don't really need to go
> through the per-cpu variable first and then a check to validate the
> frequenc
Most of the callers of cpufreq_frequency_get_table() already have the
pointer to a valid 'policy' structure and they don't really need to go
through the per-cpu variable first and then a check to validate the
frequency, in order to find the freq-table for the policy.
Directly use the policy->freq_
5 matches
Mail list logo
