Hi all,
On 06/05/2014 06:24 μμ, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Stratos,
>
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 12:26 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 07:05:17 PM Stratos Karafotis wrote:
>>> On 29/04/2014 07:17 πμ, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>>>> On 26 April 2014 01:45, Stratos Karafotis <stratosk@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> This patch set introduces two freq_table helper macros which
>>>>> can be used for iteration over cpufreq_frequency_table and
>>>>> makes the necessary changes to cpufreq core and drivers that
>>>>> use such an iteration procedure.
>>>>>
>>>>> The motivation was a usage of common procedure to iterate over
>>>>> cpufreq_frequency_table across all drivers and cpufreq core.
>>>>>
>>>>> This was tested on a x86_64 platform.
>>>>> Most files compiled successfully but unfortunately I was not
>>>>> able to compile sh_sir.c pasemi_cpufreq.c and ppc_cbe_cpufreq.c
>>>>> due to lack of cross compiler.
>>>>>
>>>>> Changelog
>>>>>
>>>>> v4 -> v5
>>>>> - Fix warnings in printk format specifier for 32 bit
>>>>> architectures in freq_table.c, longhaul, pasemi, ppc_cbe
>>>>
>>>> Doesn't look much has changed and so it stays as is:
>>>>
>>>> Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you very much!
>>
>> I've applied the series to my bleeding-edge branch, will move it to linux-next
>> after build testing later this week.
>
> This breaks if CONFIG_CPU_FREQ=n, e.g. ARM/shmobile/koelsch/
> non-multiplatform:
>
> drivers/built-in.o: In function `clk_round_parent':
> clkdev.c:(.text+0xcf168): undefined reference to `cpufreq_next_valid'
> drivers/built-in.o: In function `clk_rate_table_find':
> clkdev.c:(.text+0xcf820): undefined reference to `cpufreq_next_valid'
> make[3]: *** [vmlinux] Error 1
>
> drivers/sh/clk/core.c (pre-CCF shmobile clock core) calls
> cpufreq_for_each_valid_entry():
>
> #define cpufreq_for_each_valid_entry(pos, table) \
> for (pos = table; cpufreq_next_valid(&pos); pos++)
>
> but cpufreq_next_valid() in drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c is not
> compiled in.
My bad. I'm sorry for this. :(
Rafael,
A solution could be to make cpufreq_next_valid an inline function in cpufreq.h,
but as Viresh mentioned this would be very inefficient because of multiple copies.
So, maybe it's better to revert the 2 patches that don't depend on CONFIG_CPU_FREQ:
4229e1c61a4a ("sh: clk: Use cpufreq_for_each_valid_entry macro for iteration") and
04ae58645afa ("irda: sh_sir: Use cpufreq_for_each_valid_entry macro for iteration").
Do I need to send revert patches for the above?
Thanks,
Stratos
--
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
