[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150728020644.GL18535@linux>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 07:36:44 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] cpufreq: Separate CPU device removal from CPU online
On 27-07-15, 23:56, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> OK, I've just seen that patch, but it doesn't modify bus_probe_device() AFAICS.
Why is bus_probe_device() required to be modified?
I wrote this patch to propagate -EPROBE_DEFER from the ->init()
callback, which is called from cpufreq_register_driver().
And that worked after my patch..
> Plus we also ignore the return value of cpufreq_add_dev() in the
> hotplug notifier callback.
My use case needed it for the subsys callback.
--
viresh
--
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