On Thursday, February 07, 2013 06:52:20 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 7 February 2013 18:35, Rafael J. Wysocki <r...@sisk.pl> wrote: > > I think they all make sense, so applied to linux-next. > > > > I would prefer not to make any more changes to cpufreq before v3.9 from now > > on, > > except for fixes and maybe the Drik's patchset that I kind of scheduled for > > Dirk :)
Yes, sorry Dirk. > > merging into bleeding-edge later today. > > I probably have few more for you. Some sparse warnings to be fixed for > Dirks work and an dangling exynos patch which is waiting for your reply :) Which Exynos patch? BTW, there still are locking problems in linux-next. Why do we need to take cpufreq_driver_lock() around driver->init() in cpufreq_add_dev(), in particular? Rafael -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
