On 26 February 2014 02:41, Saravana Kannan <skan...@codeaurora.org> wrote:
> On 02/25/2014 05:04 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Tuesday, February 25, 2014 02:20:57 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:

> I think there's been a misunderstanding of what I'm proposing. The reference
> to policy->clk is only to get rid of the dependency that
> cpufreq_generic_get() has on the per cpu policy variable being filled. You
> can do that by just removing calls to get _IF_ clk is filled in.

cpufreq_cpu_get() can be called by other drivers as well, which may not have
clock interface implemented for them. We can't stop them from calling it.

> I'll look at the patches later today and respond. Although, I would have
> been nice you had helped me fix any issues with my patch than coming up with
> new ones. Kinda removes to motivation for submitting patches upstream.

Sorry if I demotivated you at all :)

I just wanted to get to a quick-fix and wasn't interested in getting
my patch count
up. Thought that isn't always bad :)

I sent my patches as they were very different then your approach. Obviously, I
wouldn't have done this otherwise :)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Reply via email to