Re: [PATCH 1/3] cpufreq, longhaul: Fix double invocation of cpufreq_freq_transition_begin/end

2014-04-25 Thread Srivatsa S. Bhat
On 04/25/2014 02:07 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 25 April 2014 13:48, Srivatsa S. Bhat > wrote: > >> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/longhaul.c b/drivers/cpufreq/longhaul.c > >> @@ -269,8 +269,6 @@ static void longhaul_setstate(struct cpufreq_policy >> *policy, > > This routine has this code as w

Re: [PATCH 1/3] cpufreq, longhaul: Fix double invocation of cpufreq_freq_transition_begin/end

2014-04-25 Thread Viresh Kumar
On 25 April 2014 13:48, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote: > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/longhaul.c b/drivers/cpufreq/longhaul.c > @@ -269,8 +269,6 @@ static void longhaul_setstate(struct cpufreq_policy > *policy, This routine has this code as well: mult = mults[mults_index & 0x1f]; if (mult == -1)

[PATCH 1/3] cpufreq, longhaul: Fix double invocation of cpufreq_freq_transition_begin/end

2014-04-25 Thread Srivatsa S. Bhat
During frequency transitions, the cpufreq core takes the responsibility of invoking cpufreq_freq_transition_begin() and cpufreq_freq_transition_end() for those cpufreq drivers that define the ->target_index callback but don't set the ASYNC_NOTIFICATION flag. The longhaul cpufreq driver falls under