On 09/20/2013 11:51 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 20 September 2013 18:08, Nishanth Menon <nm@xxxxxx> wrote: > >> I am open to suggestions if any one feels we can improve this better. > > I didn't really had one.. I thought of pm_opp** instead of dev_pm_opp** > though.. I had proposed this earlier, however, had gone with Rafael's suggestion [1] to have the right context to the usage. > >> I believe that change was from Patch #2[1] > > Yeah.. I just replied on a single patch :) > >> yes, you are right, I had squashed this patch in to squelch checkpatch >> warnings: > > I see.. > >> I had added a comment: >> " Minor checkpatch warning fixes as a result of this change was fixed as >> well." > > I really missed that.. no problems.. > >> Would you suggest I split the change off to a separate patch or improve >> the comment a little more? > > don't really know, maybe leave those as is and let checkpatch warn you.. > that is fair as well. i can split it off seperately in the next respin. [1] http://marc.info/?l=linaro-kernel&m=137645747511725&w=2 -- Regards, Nishanth Menon -- 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
