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 Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 7:05 PM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> 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..

Well given the use case here I agree, keep with the -ENOENT.

Yours,
Linus Walleij


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-09-20 19:41    [W:0.051 / U:2.464 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site