On Thursday, November 28, 2013 07:49:29 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 28 November 2013 19:53, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I don't think that the Nishanth's issue is fixed by this particular version of > > the patch, so I modified the changelog and removed a the comment above > > cpufreq_suspend() > > No, it does fix his issue as we are just stopping the governors from > dpm_suspend_noirq() and not initiating any new transitions. I said we need > these calls from dpm_suspend() instead as platforms like exynos and tegra > do need to change frequency before suspending.. > > See: > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/11/25/692 > > > (which should be a proper kerneldoc one if any, BTW). > > Okay.. I will add that separately.. > > > I've also made some minor changes to the conditionals, because I didn't like them > > the way they were written originally. > > > > Please check the result in bleeding-edge. > > Everything else is fine.. So I'm reading this as "the version of the patch in bleeding-edge is OK". I hope that really is the case. :-) Thanks! -- 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
