From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 Resend 00/92] CPUFreq Cleanup Series: Part II Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 00:17:30 +0200 Message-ID: <4804152.VMEEXS0eqL@vostro.rjw.lan> References: <4259753.v7BpD2vKia@vostro.rjw.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: Received: from v094114.home.net.pl ([79.96.170.134]:53332 "HELO v094114.home.net.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1754792Ab3JKWFp (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Oct 2013 18:05:45 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: Viresh Kumar Cc: cpufreq@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Friday, October 11, 2013 07:27:44 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 11/10/2013, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > So I've just added this to bleeding-edge, but I have a couple complaints. > > Thanks.. > > > First off, this is three patch sets in one. The first part is the generic > > .attr(), exit() and .verify() one, the second part is the duplicated > > initialization and the third one is about cpufreq_generic_init(). They > > really should have been posted and reviewed separately. > > They were posted and reviewed separately earlier.. Only this time > I have merged them together for applying.. > > > And while I'm basically OK with the first and the third part, I'm concerned > > about the second one, because it has potential to introduce some subtle > > initialization issues (initializing something twice is not a bug per se, > > although it is inefficient, but failing to initialize that or initializing > > it > > with an incorrect value *is* a bug). > > I agree.. Lets see if it breaks anything... I will get it fixed as soon as > possible.. (BTW, there was a fixup for the last series that you missed > to apply: fixup! cpufreq: sa11x0: Expose frequency table) Any links?