On 05/15/2013 12:25 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 14 May 2013 21:45, Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 05/14/2013 07:46 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> ...
>>> This must address your concerns:
>>> @Rafael: I have attached both patches now for you to apply.
>>>
>>> From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 19:08:50 +0530
>>> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] cpufreq: tegra: Remove irrelevant comment
>>>
>>> Tegra cpufreq driver doesn't use .index field of cpufreq_frequency_table and so
>>> comment mentioning order of .index is irrelevant. Remove it.
>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/tegra-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/tegra-cpufreq.c
>>
>>> -/* Frequency table index must be sequential starting at 0 */
>>> static struct cpufreq_frequency_table freq_table[] = {
>>> { 0, 216000 },
>>> { 1, 312000 },
>>
>> Does the .index/.data field even need to be filled in any more?
>
> No. But i didn't wanted to write following code: { .frequency = *** }, as
> earlier one was fine too.
>
> Ack whichever version you want (Attached too):
...
> Subject: [PATCH] cpufreq: tegra: Don't initialize .index field of
> cpufreq_frequency_table
>
> Tegra cpufreq driver doesn't use .index field of cpufreq_frequency_table and so
> we don't need to initialize it. Don't initialize it.
This one looks good.
Acked-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxx>
--
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
