On 19-06-18, 15:55, Taniya Das wrote: > Yes, Viresh, earlier code was updating the table frequency as I was marking > the table frequency INVALID. > if (core_count != c->max_cores) > c->table[i].frequency = CPUFREQ_ENTRY_INVALID; > > And thus I had to update the table frequency. > > But now I have used the cur_freq instead and the table frequency is not > touched. > if (core_count != c->max_cores) > cur_freq = CPUFREQ_ENTRY_INVALID; Unless I am reading your versions incorrectly, they behave differently. Until V2, if core_count wasn't equal to max_cores then the frequency was getting marked as INVALID straight away in the table itself. Now if the next freq is also same then you abort and overwrite the previous one as valid, but otherwise it remains INVALID for ever. And this last thing doesn't happen anymore. So if in your table there are few frequency entries which aren't repeating, but the core_count != max_cores for some of them, they remain valid in the newer versions. -- viresh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
