From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: governors: remove redundant code Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 23:12:13 +0200 Message-ID: <3245066.cWfgP9Ikey@vostro.rjw.lan> References: <32e5bed743cc6cc4e614291a7080299f5f0d0933.1350677395.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org> <1597360.JT7plJlUsZ@vostro.rjw.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1597360.JT7plJlUsZ@vostro.rjw.lan> Sender: cpufreq-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Viresh Kumar Cc: cpufreq@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org, patches@linaro.org, pdsw-power-team@arm.com, arvind.chauhan@arm.com List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday 24 of October 2012 21:43:46 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wednesday 24 of October 2012 11:37:13 Viresh Kumar wrote: > > On 22 October 2012 14:16, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > On 20 October 2012 01:42, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > >> Initially ondemand governor was written and then using its code conservative > > >> governor is written. It used a lot of code from ondemand governor, but copy of > > >> code was created instead of using the same routines from both governors. Which > > >> increased code redundancy, which is difficult to manage. > > >> > > >> This patch is an attempt to move common part of both the governors to > > >> cpufreq_governor.c file to come over above mentioned issues. > > >> > > >> This shouldn't change anything from functionality point of view. > > >> > > >> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar > > > > For everybody else, this patch is already pushed by Rafael in his linux-next > > branch. > > Well, not yet, although I'm going to do that. Or I would if it still applied. Unfortunately, though, it doesn't apply any more to my linux-next branch due to some previous changes in it. Care to rebase? Rafael -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.