On 8 February 2013 04:37, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thursday, February 07, 2013 06:52:20 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: >> On 7 February 2013 18:35, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> > I think they all make sense, so applied to linux-next. >> > >> > I would prefer not to make any more changes to cpufreq before v3.9 from now on, >> > except for fixes and maybe the Drik's patchset that I kind of scheduled for >> >> Dirk :) > > Yes, sorry Dirk. > >> > merging into bleeding-edge later today. >> >> I probably have few more for you. Some sparse warnings to be fixed for >> Dirks work and an dangling exynos patch which is waiting for your reply :) > > Which Exynos patch? https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/1/30/592 > BTW, there still are locking problems in linux-next. Why do we need > to take cpufreq_driver_lock() around driver->init() in cpufreq_add_dev(), > in particular? I thought cpufreq provides atomicity to all drivers callbacks and that's why i had those around it :( -- 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
