From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Viresh Kumar Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] cpufreq: exynos: Adding cpufreq driver for exynos5440 Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 09:53:05 +0530 Message-ID: References: <1360179562-19950-1-git-send-email-amit.daniel@samsung.com> <1360179562-19950-2-git-send-email-amit.daniel@samsung.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Return-path: Received: from mail-ob0-f171.google.com ([209.85.214.171]:39787 "EHLO mail-ob0-f171.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759778Ab3BHEXH (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Feb 2013 23:23:07 -0500 Received: by mail-ob0-f171.google.com with SMTP id x4so3376575obh.16 for ; Thu, 07 Feb 2013 20:23:06 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: amit kachhap Cc: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" , linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kgene.kim@samsung.com, Thomas Abraham , cpufreq@vger.kernel.org, Amit Kucheria On 8 February 2013 08:56, amit kachhap wrote: >>>>> + dvfs_info->dvfs_init = true; >>>> >>>> why do you need this ? >>> This is added to synchronize the interrupts. >> >> How? You are setting it once in init() and not touching it afterwards. :) > > Yes but during init also if interrupts starts arriving before complete > initialization so to protect that case it is there. I suppose there > are other ways. Will check them Then clear any pending interrupts from init () From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: viresh.kumar@linaro.org (Viresh Kumar) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 09:53:05 +0530 Subject: [PATCH 2/3] cpufreq: exynos: Adding cpufreq driver for exynos5440 In-Reply-To: References: <1360179562-19950-1-git-send-email-amit.daniel@samsung.com> <1360179562-19950-2-git-send-email-amit.daniel@samsung.com> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 8 February 2013 08:56, amit kachhap wrote: >>>>> + dvfs_info->dvfs_init = true; >>>> >>>> why do you need this ? >>> This is added to synchronize the interrupts. >> >> How? You are setting it once in init() and not touching it afterwards. :) > > Yes but during init also if interrupts starts arriving before complete > initialization so to protect that case it is there. I suppose there > are other ways. Will check them Then clear any pending interrupts from init ()