On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 04:52:15PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 25-01-16, 11:18, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 25/01/16 15:20, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > On 25-01-16, 15:16, Gautham R. Shenoy wrote:
> > > > Currently next_policy() explicitly checks if a policy is the last
> > > > policy in the cpufreq_policy_list. Use the standard list_is_last
> > > > primitive instead.
> > > >
> > > > Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.ku...@linaro.org>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Gautham R. Shenoy <e...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 6 +++---
> > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > > > index 78b1e2f..b3059a3 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > > > @@ -67,11 +67,11 @@ static struct cpufreq_policy *next_policy(struct
> > > > cpufreq_policy *policy,
> > > > {
> > > > lockdep_assert_held(&cpufreq_driver_lock);
> >
> > Which branch is this patch based on?
>
> Dude, what's going on here? How come you rebased on Juri's patches ?
> :)
Ah right! I found this issue while reviewing Juri's patches from the
cpufreq-cleanups branch and didn't switch back to pm-next before
making this change. Shall resend the patch.
>
> --
> viresh
>
--
Thanks and Regards
gautham.
