On 10 August 2013 13:53, Hans-Christian Egtvedt <egtvedt@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Around Sat 10 Aug 2013 12:14:07 +0530 or thereabout, Viresh Kumar wrote: >> Most of the CPUFreq drivers do similar things in .exit() and .verify() routines >> and .attr. So its better if we have generic routines for them which can be used >> by cpufreq drivers then. >> >> This patch uses these generic routines for this driver. > > Nice, thanks for cleaning up (-: > >> Cc: Hans-Christian Egtvedt <egtvedt@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Acked-by: Hans-Christian Egtvedt <egtvedt@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Thanks for your Ack but I have to NACK it :) My patch was wrong.. It was based on the assumption that everybody who had implemented a .target() also implements a frequency table and exposes it.. And the generic routines I have exposed depend on that frequency table. And this cpufreq driver doesn't expose that freq table... And so this patch is dropped :( -- viresh -- 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
