[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACRpkdZRyUrC9-kkVcP_PbhE21ycTd=me8Gbjo7bRx6HhaT9JA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 19:31:43 +0200
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Regression on cpufreq in v3.12-rc1
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 7:05 PM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
> On 20 September 2013 21:09, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
>>
>>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>>> @@ -1460,6 +1460,9 @@ unsigned int cpufreq_get(unsigned int cpu)
>>> {
>>> unsigned int ret_freq = 0;
>>>
>>> + if (cpufreq_disabled() || !cpufreq_driver)
>>> + return -ENOENT;
>>> +
>>
>> But given that a cpufreq driver is just like any other driver, isn't the
>> proper thing to do to return -EPROBE_DEFER?
>
> Its not a probe and so that error type doesn't look correct to me..
> Also, its only taking care of things when this routine is called without
> a cpufreq driver and so it should be fine..
Well given the use case here I agree, keep with the -ENOENT.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
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