[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160330050732.GE8773@vireshk-i7>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 10:37:32 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc: Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@...aro.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [Update][PATCH v7 6/7] cpufreq: Support for fast frequency
switching
On 30-03-16, 03:47, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Index: linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
> @@ -843,6 +883,7 @@ static int acpi_cpufreq_cpu_exit(struct
> pr_debug("acpi_cpufreq_cpu_exit\n");
>
> if (data) {
> + policy->fast_switch_possible = false;
Is this done just for keeping code symmetric or is there a logical advantage
of this? Just for my understanding, not saying that it is wrong.
Otherwise, it looks good
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists