Re: [PATCH 1/2] cpufreq: Set policy->related_cpus to atleast policy->cpus

["Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>]

On Tuesday, January 29, 2013 08:00:23 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 29 January 2013 17:21, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 29, 2013 10:09:59 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> >> With the addition of following patch, related_cpus is required to be set by
> >> cpufreq platform drivers:
> >>
> >> commit c1070fd743533efb54e98142252283583f379190
> >> Author: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> >> Date:   Mon Jan 14 13:23:04 2013 +0000
> >>
> >>     cpufreq: Simplify cpufreq_add_dev()
> >>
> >
> > I've dropped this one in the meantime.
> >
> > Can you please fold the $subject patch into "cpufreq: Simplify cpufreq_add_dev()"
> > and post the result instead?  That surely will be less confusing?
> 
> Okay. I will squash this one with cpufreq_add_dev() one + following line:
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/spear-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/spear-cpufreq.c
> index 8ff26af..fc714a6 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/spear-cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/spear-cpufreq.c
> @@ -189,7 +189,6 @@ static int spear_cpufreq_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>         policy->cur = spear_cpufreq_get(0);
> 
>         cpumask_copy(policy->cpus, topology_core_cpumask(policy->cpu));
> -       cpumask_copy(policy->related_cpus, policy->cpus);
> 
>         return 0;
>  }
> 
> 
> Also, because you are happy loosing your commit history in linux-next,
> you can drop
> the patch that i have reverted as 2/2 of this set.

Well, I'm not attached to the linux-next commit history, but also it's a
pain to change it too oftern. :-)

I generally avoid changing it unless there are build issues and such that
would cause pain to people doing bisection, for example.

Thanks,
Rafael


-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.