12 Feb
2015
12 Feb
'15
7:48 a.m.
On 12 February 2015 at 11:13, Saravana Kannan skannan@codeaurora.org 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..