Around Mon 12 Aug 2013 11:37:45 +0530 or thereabout, Viresh Kumar wrote: > 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... Right, my bad, I just looked at the code flow and saw that the generic path did pretty much the same as the AVR32 implementation. Didn't consider the table part as missing. > And so this patch is dropped :( > Ok, AVR32 driver should expose a frequency table then, which is quite simple. -- mvh Hans-Christian Egtvedt -- 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
