Hi, On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 2:39 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 10-09-15, 01:26, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> On Monday, August 03, 2015 08:36:14 AM Viresh Kumar wrote: >> > What's being done from CPUFREQ_INCOMPATIBLE, can also be done with >> > CPUFREQ_ADJUST. There is nothing special with CPUFREQ_INCOMPATIBLE >> > notifier. >> >> The above part of the changelog is a disaster to me. :-( >> >> It not only doesn't explain what really goes on, but it's actively confusing. >> >> What really happens is that the core sends CPUFREQ_INCOMPATIBLE notifications >> unconditionally right after sending the CPUFREQ_ADJUST ones, so the former is >> just redundant and it's more efficient to merge the two into one. > > Undoubtedly this looks far better :) > > But, isn't this series already applied some time back ? Right, never mind. For some reason that patch was left in the "New" state. The code is OK. Thanks, Rafael -- 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
