On Friday, October 11, 2013 08:07:37 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 11/10/2013, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thursday, October 03, 2013 08:28:31 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: > >> Many common initializations of struct policy are moved to core now and > >> hence > >> this driver doesn't need to do it. This patch removes such code. > >> > >> Most recent of those changes is to call ->get() in the core after calling > >> ->init(). > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c | 1 - > >> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c > >> b/drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c > >> index 94a5a1d..a8dac7b 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c > >> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c > >> @@ -842,7 +842,6 @@ static int acpi_cpufreq_cpu_init(struct cpufreq_policy > >> *policy) > >> break; > >> case ACPI_ADR_SPACE_FIXED_HARDWARE: > >> acpi_cpufreq_driver.get = get_cur_freq_on_cpu; > >> - policy->cur = get_cur_freq_on_cpu(cpu); > >> break; > >> default: > >> break; > > > > I'm wondering what happens if space_id is ACPI_ADR_SPACE_SYSTEM_IO? I > > suppose > > that the core will set policy->cur first and then it will be overwritten > > here? > > No. First ->init() is called and then core sets policy->cur. And it sets > it only if there is a valid ->get() available.. Which wouldn't be available > in case of ACPI_ADR_SPACE_SYSTEM_IO.. OK Care to send a patch adding a comment under the ACPI_ADR_SPACE_SYSTEM_IO case explaining that policy->cur it sets won't be clobbered by the core because etc.? -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
