Hello Rafael, On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 11:23:54PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thursday, January 31, 2013 07:50:04 PM Fabio Baltieri wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 10:58:02PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > With the inclusion of following patches: > > > > > > 9f4eb10 cpufreq: conservative: call dbs_check_cpu only when necessary > > > 772b4b1 cpufreq: ondemand: call dbs_check_cpu only when necessary > > > > > > code redundancy is introduced again. Get rid of it. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > > Hi, > > > > Tested-by: Fabio Baltieri <fabio.baltieri@xxxxxxxxxx> > > OK > > Fabio, Viresh, Shawn, > > This time I was *really* confused as to what patches I was supposed to take, > from whom and in what order, so I applied a number of them in the order given > by patchwork. That worked well enough, because (almost) all of them applied > for me without conflicts. That said I would appreciate it if you could look > into the bleeding-edge branch of my tree and see if there's anything missing > or something that shouldn't be there (cpufreq-wise). Sorry for the confusion, your current bleeding-edge branch (eed52da) looks good to me. I also did a quick build and run and it works fine on my setup. Many thanks, Fabio -- Fabio Baltieri -- 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
