[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <510B85D1.5070401@ti.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 14:37:29 +0530
From: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...com>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
CC: <linaro-dev@...ts.linaro.org>, <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <cpufreq@...r.kernel.org>,
<rjw@...k.pl>, <Steve.Bannister@....com>,
Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] cpufreq: Remove unnecessary use of policy->shared_type
Viresh,
On Friday 01 February 2013 02:22 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> On Friday 01 February 2013 01:32 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> On 1 February 2013 13:03, Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...com>
>> wrote:
>>> I am not talking about just notifiers. This is for external users who
>>> has subscribed for notifiers. The point is whether the core CPUFReq
>>> gets updated without that flag for all affected CPU.
>>
>> Yes, its safe. Follow this thread, yesterday i explained this to
>> Tomasz Figa:
>>
>> http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg221629.html
>>
> That part was very clear to me Viresh. Anyway thanks for the link.
> From what I read so far, it might just work but I would want to
> try it out before acking the approach.
>
You are correct. Sorry for oversight on your initial point about the
usage of the flag. When I added that flag, I just went by the
description thinking the cpufreq core booking and stat updates
use the flag. Its not the case.
Thanks for the fix. For the patch,
Acked-by: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...com>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists