From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 5/8] mfd: db8500-prcmu: Use cpufreq_for_each_entry macro for iteration Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 12:18:51 +0200 Message-ID: <6612075.PRZcWcuj98@vostro.rjw.lan> References: <534DB213.7080802@semaphore.gr> <5355A349.50908@semaphore.gr> <20140422071541.GA17657@lee--X1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20140422071541.GA17657@lee--X1> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Lee Jones Cc: Stratos Karafotis , Linus Walleij , Samuel Ortiz , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, LKML , Viresh Kumar , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday, April 22, 2014 08:15:41 AM Lee Jones wrote: > > The cpufreq core now supports the cpufreq_for_each_entry macro helper > > for iteration over the cpufreq_frequency_table, so use it. > > > > It should have no functional changes. > > > Signed-off-by: Stratos Karafotis > > --- > > It would be good to have a changelog which describes the differences > between the versions, so we can keep track. > > > drivers/mfd/db8500-prcmu.c | 19 ++++++++----------- > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) > > So it looks like I already applied v2 of this patch to my tree. What > changed in v3 and v4? Should I remove that patch from MFD and apply > this one instead? The reason why v4 was sent is because I asked for it. And if you applied [5/8] without [1/8], it won't work, because the macro is introduced by that patch. If that's the case, please drop [5/8] and let me handle the entire series. Kind regards, Rafael