From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757184Ab3AaWv3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Jan 2013 17:51:29 -0500 Received: from mail-ea0-f174.google.com ([209.85.215.174]:52799 "EHLO mail-ea0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755931Ab3AaWv2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Jan 2013 17:51:28 -0500 Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 23:51:14 +0100 From: Fabio Baltieri To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Viresh Kumar , Shawn Guo , cpufreq@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org, robin.randhawa@arm.com, Steve.Bannister@arm.com, Liviu.Dudau@arm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: governors: Remove code redundancy between governors Message-ID: <20130131225114.GA6433@balto.lan> References: <09a94ff044ff6a6f7a5d953c3b1f3102c1dc50cf.1359653181.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org> <118c59263751862b1750ed9f96639a4e70069e66.1359653181.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org> <20130131185004.GB20164@balto.lan> <1730121.raxo9SGZyf@vostro.rjw.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1730121.raxo9SGZyf@vostro.rjw.lan> X-Operating-System: Linux balto 3.8.0-rc3-00668-g55706d3 x86_64 GNU/Linux User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello Rafael, On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 11:23:54PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thursday, January 31, 2013 07:50:04 PM Fabio Baltieri wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 10:58:02PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > With the inclusion of following patches: > > > > > > 9f4eb10 cpufreq: conservative: call dbs_check_cpu only when necessary > > > 772b4b1 cpufreq: ondemand: call dbs_check_cpu only when necessary > > > > > > code redundancy is introduced again. Get rid of it. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar > > > --- > > > > Hi, > > > > Tested-by: Fabio Baltieri > > OK > > Fabio, Viresh, Shawn, > > This time I was *really* confused as to what patches I was supposed to take, > from whom and in what order, so I applied a number of them in the order given > by patchwork. That worked well enough, because (almost) all of them applied > for me without conflicts. That said I would appreciate it if you could look > into the bleeding-edge branch of my tree and see if there's anything missing > or something that shouldn't be there (cpufreq-wise). Sorry for the confusion, your current bleeding-edge branch (eed52da) looks good to me. I also did a quick build and run and it works fine on my setup. Many thanks, Fabio -- Fabio Baltieri