On 21 January 2015 at 15:17, Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > In previous versions I've only checked for cpu 0. > > If you think that it is enough to explicitly check only for cpu 0 and > forget about above "fail safe" code (when. e.g. CPU3 has defined > cooling-cells), then I'm fine with it. I don't know what bindings are you following, but cpufreq-dt's bindings say that it has to be present in cpu0. Anyway, this driver isn't for a multi-cluster system and so cpu0 should be fine. > As I've mention - it would be maintainer's call if one trades potential > regression for patch separation. I am just asking it to split into a separate patch, not that I will get it through cpufreq. Eduardo can take it, but it should be a separate patch. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
 |