On Saturday, October 12, 2013 06:55:59 AM Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 12/10/2013, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Friday, October 11, 2013 07:27:44 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: > >> On 11/10/2013, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > So I've just added this to bleeding-edge, but I have a couple > >> > complaints. > >> > >> Thanks.. > >> > >> > First off, this is three patch sets in one. The first part is the > >> > generic > >> > .attr(), exit() and .verify() one, the second part is the duplicated > >> > initialization and the third one is about cpufreq_generic_init(). They > >> > really should have been posted and reviewed separately. > >> > >> They were posted and reviewed separately earlier.. Only this time > >> I have merged them together for applying.. > >> > >> > And while I'm basically OK with the first and the third part, I'm > >> > concerned > >> > about the second one, because it has potential to introduce some subtle > >> > initialization issues (initializing something twice is not a bug per > >> > se, > >> > although it is inefficient, but failing to initialize that or > >> > initializing > >> > it > >> > with an incorrect value *is* a bug). > >> > >> I agree.. Lets see if it breaks anything... I will get it fixed as soon > >> as > >> possible.. (BTW, there was a fixup for the last series that you missed > >> to apply: fixup! cpufreq: sa11x0: Expose frequency table) > > > > Any links? > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/10/4/7 OK, so which commit introduced the breakage? -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- 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
