Hi Viresh, > 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. Ok. > > > 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. Lets do it in this way :-). Thanks. -- Best regards, Lukasz Majewski Samsung R&D Institute Poland (SRPOL) | Linux Platform Group -- 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
 |