From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Santosh Shilimkar Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] cpufreq: Remove unnecessary use of policy->shared_type Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 14:37:29 +0530 Message-ID: <510B85D1.5070401@ti.com> References: <1bf82454ab1f16b13212548d7c9605067c8b7a0d.1359700705.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org> <902bed453159832925df76e24806f3b919fdfc74.1359700706.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org> <510B6510.6060608@ti.com> <510B6FC5.8030309@ti.com> <510B8237.7030605@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <510B8237.7030605@ti.com> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Viresh Kumar Cc: linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cpufreq@vger.kernel.org, rjw@sisk.pl, Steve.Bannister@arm.com, Stephen Warren Viresh, On Friday 01 February 2013 02:22 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: > On Friday 01 February 2013 01:32 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote: >> On 1 February 2013 13:03, Santosh Shilimkar >> wrote: >>> I am not talking about just notifiers. This is for external users who >>> has subscribed for notifiers. The point is whether the core CPUFReq >>> gets updated without that flag for all affected CPU. >> >> Yes, its safe. Follow this thread, yesterday i explained this to >> Tomasz Figa: >> >> http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg221629.html >> > That part was very clear to me Viresh. Anyway thanks for the link. > From what I read so far, it might just work but I would want to > try it out before acking the approach. > You are correct. Sorry for oversight on your initial point about the usage of the flag. When I added that flag, I just went by the description thinking the cpufreq core booking and stat updates use the flag. Its not the case. Thanks for the fix. For the patch, Acked-by: Santosh Shilimkar