On 21 November 2013 18:41, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thursday, November 21, 2013 12:39:02 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>> @@ -1038,6 +1038,32 @@ static int __cpufreq_add_dev(struct device *dev, struct subsys_interface *sif,
>> + if (has_target()) {
>> + ret = __cpufreq_driver_target(policy, policy->cur,
>> + CPUFREQ_RELATION_L);
>> + if (ret)
>> + pr_err("%s: Unable to set frequency from table: %d\n",
>> + __func__, ret);
>
> Should we continue in that case?
I wasn't sure. I thought maybe there are platforms which might not be
ready for transitions so early and so an error message would be fine,
as we will fail soon anyway in case there is a bug.
--
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
