On Thursday, December 19, 2013 10:57:06 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 19 December 2013 05:03, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > + if (cpufreq_driver->setpolicy) {
> > + unsigned int ret;
> > +
> > + /* Use the default policyt if it is valid. */
> > + if (!cpufreq_parse_governor(policy->governor->name, &ret, NULL))
> > + new_policy.policy = ret;
> > + }
>
> What about this instead as cpufreq_parse_governor isn't supposed to change
> value of ret in case of errors.
>
> > + if (cpufreq_driver->setpolicy)
> > + cpufreq_parse_governor(policy->governor->name, &new_policy.policy, NULL);
Right, this is even better as far as the code goes, but adding a comment
describing the role of it would still be nice.
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
