"Nori, Sekhar" <[email protected]> writes: > Hi Caglar, > > On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 13:31:23, Caglar Akyuz wrote: >> On Thursday 05 August 2010 09:44:33 pm Kevin Hilman wrote: >> > Sekhar Nori <[email protected]> writes: >> > > Current cpufreq code does not consider errors that can occur while >> > > changing voltage. Code to increase CPU frequency goes ahead even in >> > > the case the regulator has failed to increase the voltage. This leads >> > > to hard error since lower voltages cannot support increased frequency. >> > > >> > > Prevent this by not increasing frequency in case increasing voltage >> > > is not successful. >> > > >> > > Also, do not lower the voltage if changing the cpu frequency has failed >> > > for some reason. >> > > >> > > Note that we do not return error on failure to decrease voltage as >> > > that is not a hard error. >> > > >> > > Signed-off-by: Sekhar Nori <[email protected]> >> > >> > Series looks good. >> > >> > Applying the whole series after doing the 'ratio--' change locally as >> > suggested by Sergei. >> > >> >> Just noticed... 4th patch in this series breaks build for non-cpufreq >> kernels. I guess since you pushed the change a proper patch is >> needed? > > Indeed I missed the update for non-cpufreq build. Thanks for fixing this. > > I think you should go ahead and submit a formal patch. Since the original > patch has not been sent to Linus, with your yes, the patch can be merged > into mine while sending upstream (the change log can be updated to reflect > inclusion of your fix). > > Kevin can confirm if this is the preferred route.
Yes, in fact I did it using this patch, so it's done. Thanks Caglar for the fix. Kevin _______________________________________________ Davinci-linux-open-source mailing list [email protected] http://linux.davincidsp.com/mailman/listinfo/davinci-linux-open-source
