From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759609Ab3BHCt0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Feb 2013 21:49:26 -0500 Received: from mail-oa0-f45.google.com ([209.85.219.45]:57693 "EHLO mail-oa0-f45.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758568Ab3BHCtY (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Feb 2013 21:49:24 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1947746.IyFppZQEx8@vostro.rjw.lan> References: <2158181.aoVXdpLJe2@vostro.rjw.lan> <1947746.IyFppZQEx8@vostro.rjw.lan> Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 08:19:23 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] CPUFreq Fixes for 3.9 From: Viresh Kumar To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu, artem.savkov@gmail.com, 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, dirk.brandewie@gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 8 February 2013 04:37, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thursday, February 07, 2013 06:52:20 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: >> On 7 February 2013 18:35, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> > I think they all make sense, so applied to linux-next. >> > >> > I would prefer not to make any more changes to cpufreq before v3.9 from now on, >> > except for fixes and maybe the Drik's patchset that I kind of scheduled for >> >> Dirk :) > > Yes, sorry Dirk. > >> > merging into bleeding-edge later today. >> >> I probably have few more for you. Some sparse warnings to be fixed for >> Dirks work and an dangling exynos patch which is waiting for your reply :) > > Which Exynos patch? https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/1/30/592 > BTW, there still are locking problems in linux-next. Why do we need > to take cpufreq_driver_lock() around driver->init() in cpufreq_add_dev(), > in particular? I thought cpufreq provides atomicity to all drivers callbacks and that's why i had those around it :(