On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 01:21:33 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 12 March 2014 04:08, Dirk Brandewie <dirk.brandewie@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Zero frequency the core is not running. I said it is a valid answer not > > that I should be returning it. There is nothing in the docs or headers that > > I can > > find that says Zero is a failure value. > > In this case cpufreq_add_dev() shouldn't have been called for this CPU > then. And so its obviously better to return error in such cases. Why isn't it documented, then? In fact, zero returned by ->get() has no defined meaning as I said before. The point, however, is that at least intel_pstate could return 0 *before* your changes and you made up that whole "0 can't be returned from ->get()" argument. It *could* be returned and it *was* returned sometimes. That's what the report is about. -- 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
