Messages in this thread | | | From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 5/8] mfd: db8500-prcmu: Use cpufreq_for_each_entry macro for iteration | Date | Tue, 22 Apr 2014 13:49:31 +0200 |
| |
On Tuesday, April 22, 2014 12:27:17 PM Lee Jones wrote: > On Tue, 22 Apr 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Tuesday, April 22, 2014 08:15:41 AM Lee Jones wrote: > > > > The cpufreq core now supports the cpufreq_for_each_entry macro helper > > > > for iteration over the cpufreq_frequency_table, so use it. > > > > > > > > It should have no functional changes. > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Stratos Karafotis <stratosk@semaphore.gr> > > > > --- > > > > > > It would be good to have a changelog which describes the differences > > > between the versions, so we can keep track. > > > > > > > drivers/mfd/db8500-prcmu.c | 19 ++++++++----------- > > > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) > > > > > > So it looks like I already applied v2 of this patch to my tree. What > > > changed in v3 and v4? Should I remove that patch from MFD and apply > > > this one instead? > > > > The reason why v4 was sent is because I asked for it. > > > > And if you applied [5/8] without [1/8], it won't work, because the macro is > > introduced by that patch. > > That's right, which is why I mailed you about it: > > > > > Applied untested by me. > > > > > > Wouldn't build. Let it go via Rafael. > > > > Rafael, would you mind creating a branch from this patch set that we > > can both pull from please? > > > If that's the case, please drop [5/8] and let me handle the entire series. > > I'm happy for you to apply the series and send me a pull-request for > either a) the entire series or b) just the patches which touch MFD and > any subsequent decencies. Or I can apply them and send you one.
OK, I'll create a separate branch with those patches and will let you know where it is.
Kind regards, Rafael
| |