From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Viresh Kumar Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] cpufreq: Avoid attempts to create duplicate symbolic links Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 19:51:48 +0530 Message-ID: <20150729142148.GF5100@linux> References: <1660815.CyKx9SEI9c@vostro.rjw.lan> <4080510.IQ60sVQvbL@vostro.rjw.lan> <20150727143935.GB18535@linux> <2112385.YuDJ7h1x56@vostro.rjw.lan> <20150729091136.GN7557@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail-pa0-f51.google.com ([209.85.220.51]:35636 "EHLO mail-pa0-f51.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751846AbbG2OVy (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Jul 2015 10:21:54 -0400 Received: by pabkd10 with SMTP id kd10so6550742pab.2 for ; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 07:21:53 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Russell King - ARM Linux , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linux PM list , Linux Kernel Mailing List On 29-07-15, 15:57, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > In practice, this means a cpufreq driver registration done in parallel > with CPU hotplug. Not necessarily. Also consider the case where cpufreq driver is already working for a set of CPUs. And a new set of CPUs (that will share the policy) are getting physically added to the system. Anyway, even if there is no problem at all, I do agree with Russell that it will be better to do operations on behalf of the devices only when we are requested for those devices. -- viresh