Around Mon 12 Aug 2013 11:37:45 +0530 or thereabout, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 10 August 2013 13:53, Hans-Christian Egtvedt egtvedt@samfundet.no wrote:
Around Sat 10 Aug 2013 12:14:07 +0530 or thereabout, Viresh Kumar wrote:
Most of the CPUFreq drivers do similar things in .exit() and .verify() routines and .attr. So its better if we have generic routines for them which can be used by cpufreq drivers then.
This patch uses these generic routines for this driver.
Nice, thanks for cleaning up (-:
Cc: Hans-Christian Egtvedt egtvedt@samfundet.no Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar viresh.kumar@linaro.org
Acked-by: Hans-Christian Egtvedt egtvedt@samfundet.no
Thanks for your Ack but I have to NACK it :)
My patch was wrong.. It was based on the assumption that everybody who had implemented a .target() also implements a frequency table and exposes it.. And the generic routines I have exposed depend on that frequency table. And this cpufreq driver doesn't expose that freq table...
Right, my bad, I just looked at the code flow and saw that the generic path did pretty much the same as the AVR32 implementation. Didn't consider the table part as missing.
And so this patch is dropped :(
Ok, AVR32 driver should expose a frequency table then, which is quite simple.