From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Viresh Kumar Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/18] cpufreq: Reuse policy list instead of per-cpu variable 'cpufreq_cpu_data' Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 15:48:54 +0800 Message-ID: References: <54DC1A4B.7060405@codeaurora.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: Received: from mail-ob0-f169.google.com ([209.85.214.169]:36064 "EHLO mail-ob0-f169.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755114AbbBLHsz (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Feb 2015 02:48:55 -0500 Received: by mail-ob0-f169.google.com with SMTP id wp4so8439287obc.0 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 23:48:54 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <54DC1A4B.7060405@codeaurora.org> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: Saravana Kannan Cc: Rafael Wysocki , Linaro Kernel Mailman List , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , Stephen Boyd , Prarit Bhargava On 12 February 2015 at 11:13, Saravana Kannan wrote: >> +struct cpufreq_policy *cpufreq_cpu_get_raw(unsigned int cpu) > > Rename this to cpufreq_cpu_get_unsafe or _nolock? Its done in a later patch.. > Seems more descriptive. Hmm... you are just moving this function around. Ok, > your call. Yeah, as it has to be used earlier. > For the current version of the patch series, this patch looks ok. But when > you update it so that you don't have a separate "fallback policies list", > the change you made to __cpufreq_add_dev in this patch might need more > review. Things will change, lets see how they look like..