[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250908061333.rwzq5dj4nxlav6x5@vireshk-i7>
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2025 11:43:33 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Zihuan Zhang <zhangzihuan@...inos.cn>
Cc: "Rafael J . wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>,
zhenglifeng <zhenglifeng1@...wei.com>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/3] cpufreq: Always enforce policy limits even
without frequency table
On 04-09-25, 13:48, Zihuan Zhang wrote:
> I understand your point about the potential duplicate call to
> cpufreq_verify_within_cpu_limits() for drivers with a valid freq-table.
> However, in the third patch of this series, we removed the call to
> cpufreq_generic_frequency_table_verify() from the table_verify path.
Yeah, I missed that.
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists