Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 20 Sep 2013 19:31:43 +0200 | Subject | Re: Regression on cpufreq in v3.12-rc1 | From | Linus Walleij <> |
| |
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
| |