On Wednesday 24 of October 2012 21:43:46 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wednesday 24 of October 2012 11:37:13 Viresh Kumar wrote: > > On 22 October 2012 14:16, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 20 October 2012 01:42, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> Initially ondemand governor was written and then using its code conservative > > >> governor is written. It used a lot of code from ondemand governor, but copy of > > >> code was created instead of using the same routines from both governors. Which > > >> increased code redundancy, which is difficult to manage. > > >> > > >> This patch is an attempt to move common part of both the governors to > > >> cpufreq_governor.c file to come over above mentioned issues. > > >> > > >> This shouldn't change anything from functionality point of view. > > >> > > >> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > For everybody else, this patch is already pushed by Rafael in his linux-next > > branch. > > Well, not yet, although I'm going to do that. Or I would if it still applied. Unfortunately, though, it doesn't apply any more to my linux-next branch due to some previous changes in it. Care to rebase? Rafael -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
