On 13 May 2013 21:57, Stephen Warren swarren@wwwdotorg.org wrote:
On 05/13/2013 06:57 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
"Index" field of struct cpufreq_frequency_table was never index and isn't used at all by cpufreq core. And is only useful for cpufreq drivers for their personal use.
Many people now a days blindly set it in ascending order with the assumption that core is using it for some work.
This patch renames it to "data" as that's what its purpose it. All users of the same are fixed too.
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/tegra-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/tegra-cpufreq.c
-/* Frequency table index must be sequential starting at 0 */ +/* Frequency table data must be sequential starting at 0 */
I assume that comment is due to the assumption you're trying to remove. Should the comment be removed/corrected now? Perhaps the .data field isn't even needed any more in this driver?
static struct cpufreq_frequency_table freq_table[] = { { 0, 216000 }, { 1, 312000 },
This must address your concerns: @Rafael: I have attached both patches now for you to apply.
From: Viresh Kumar viresh.kumar@linaro.org Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 19:08:50 +0530 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] cpufreq: tegra: Remove irrelevant comment
Tegra cpufreq driver doesn't use .index field of cpufreq_frequency_table and so comment mentioning order of .index is irrelevant. Remove it.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar viresh.kumar@linaro.org --- drivers/cpufreq/tegra-cpufreq.c | 1 - 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/tegra-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/tegra-cpufreq.c index c74c0e1..293ed2c 100644 --- a/drivers/cpufreq/tegra-cpufreq.c +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/tegra-cpufreq.c @@ -28,7 +28,6 @@ #include <linux/io.h> #include <linux/suspend.h>
-/* Frequency table index must be sequential starting at 0 */ static struct cpufreq_frequency_table freq_table[] = { { 0, 216000 }, { 1, 312000 },