lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Sep]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: Regression on cpufreq in v3.12-rc1
From
On 20 September 2013 21:09, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
>
>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>> @@ -1460,6 +1460,9 @@ unsigned int cpufreq_get(unsigned int cpu)
>> {
>> unsigned int ret_freq = 0;
>>
>> + if (cpufreq_disabled() || !cpufreq_driver)
>> + return -ENOENT;
>> +
>
> But given that a cpufreq driver is just like any other driver, isn't the
> proper thing to do to return -EPROBE_DEFER?

Its not a probe and so that error type doesn't look correct to me..
Also, its only taking care of things when this routine is called without
a cpufreq driver and so it should be fine..


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-09-20 19:41    [W:0.068 / U:2.268 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site