On 09/20/2013 11:51 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 20 September 2013 18:08, Nishanth Menon wrote:
>
>> I am open to suggestions if any one feels we can improve this better.
>
> I didn't really had one.. I thought of pm_opp** instead of dev_pm_opp**
> though..
I had proposed this earlier, however,
On 20 September 2013 18:08, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> I am open to suggestions if any one feels we can improve this better.
I didn't really had one.. I thought of pm_opp** instead of dev_pm_opp**
though..
> I believe that change was from Patch #2[1]
Yeah.. I just replied on a single patch :)
>
On 12:44-20130920, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 20 September 2013 02:33, Nishanth Menon 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.. Otherwis
On 20 September 2013 02:33, Nishanth Menon 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...
Though you had following ch
Since Operating Performance Points(OPP) functions are specific to
device specific power management, be specific and rename opp_*
accessors in OPP library with dev_pm_opp_* equivalent.
Impacted functions are:
opp_get_voltage
opp_get_freq
opp_get_opp_count
opp_find_freq_exact
opp_find_freq_floor
opp
