Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 13 May 2014 17:27:35 +0530 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] PM / OPP: discard duplicate OPP additions | From | Chander Kashyap <> |
| |
On 13 May 2014 16:35, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote: > On 13 May 2014 16:00, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote: >> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 9:22 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote: >>> On 13 May 2014 13:11, [Chander Kashyap <chander.kashyap@linaro.org> wrote: >>> >>> What happened to your name ? "[" >>> >>>> From: Chander Kashyap <k.chander@samsung.com> >>>> >>>> It may be possible to unregister and re-register the cpufreq driver. >>>> One such example is arm big-little IKS cpufreq driver. While >>>> re-registering the driver, same OPPs may get added again. >>>> >>>> This patch detects the duplicacy and discards them. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Chander Kashyap <k.chander@samsung.com> >>>> Signed-off-by: Inderpal Singh <inderpal.s@samsung.com> >>>> --- >>>> drivers/base/power/opp.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++--------- >>>> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) >>> >>> I wouldn't say that this approach is particularly bad or wrong, but what >>> about this instead? >>> >> >> Yes I prefer this and this exactly what I had[1] in my OPP DT series which >> we could not conclude on the bindings. You also need patch[2] for DT version. > > Ahh, I have just reinvented the wheel. Though I can see now that I have > Acked those patches as well :) > > So, what are the plans for those patches then? As Chander also needs few > of those. > > Probably split the series to get the non-blockers upstream Atleast ? > > Another thing that I thought later, though the problem can be fixed by > your version of patches, the version from chander had something good as > well. It would get rid of duplicate entries coming from dtb. Would it make > sense to get that part in as well?
This patch takes care for duplicate entries even without dt. Hence i feel it can go as separate patch.
> > -- > viresh
-- with warm regards, Chander Kashyap
| |