On 5/14/19 5:36 PM, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
On Tue, 2019-05-14 at 08:38 -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 12:56 PM Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
Currently, there is some logic to make devfreq optional,
but it fails to cover some cases such as !CONFIG_PM_DEVFREQ.
Fails how?
On Tue, 2019-05-14 at 08:38 -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 12:56 PM Ezequiel Garcia
> wrote:
> > Currently, there is some logic to make devfreq optional,
> > but it fails to cover some cases such as !CONFIG_PM_DEVFREQ.
>
> Fails how? compiling? runtime? Or just builds extra
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 12:56 PM Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
>
> Currently, there is some logic to make devfreq optional,
> but it fails to cover some cases such as !CONFIG_PM_DEVFREQ.
Fails how? compiling? runtime? Or just builds extra code?
> Moreover, depending on return codes is not resilient to
Currently, there is some logic to make devfreq optional,
but it fails to cover some cases such as !CONFIG_PM_DEVFREQ.
Moreover, depending on return codes is not resilient to change,
so let's take a different approach, introducing proper
stubs and only conditionally compiling the devfreq support.
