On Monday, January 28, 2013 06:29:35 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 28 January 2013 17:56, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > So here's a deal: I'll drop "cpufreq: Simplify cpufreq_add_dev()" for now and > > you'll generate a new patch that won't cause the WARN_ON() to trigger. OK? > > :( > > Or what about set all cpus from policy->cpus into related_cpus in our core code? > So, if platform sets any additional cpus, they would be retained? Well, that might work. Please do whatever you think is the most appropriate and doesn't introcude any regressions. Thanks, 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
