On Tuesday 17 Nov 2020 at 17:30:33 (+0100), Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: [..] > > > > Ionela Voinescu (8): > > > > cppc_cpufreq: fix misspelling, code style and readability issues > > > > cppc_cpufreq: clean up cpu, cpu_num and cpunum variable use > > > > cppc_cpufreq: simplify use of performance capabilities > > > > cppc_cpufreq: replace per-cpu structures with lists > > > > cppc_cpufreq: use policy->cpu as driver of frequency setting > > > > cppc_cpufreq: clarify support for coordination types > > > > cppc_cpufreq: expose information on frequency domains > > > > acpi: fix NONE coordination for domain mapping failure > > > > > > > > .../ABI/testing/sysfs-devices-system-cpu | 3 +- > > > > drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c | 126 +++--- > > > > drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c | 2 +- > > > > drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c | 358 +++++++++++------- > > > > include/acpi/cppc_acpi.h | 14 +- > > > > 5 files changed, 277 insertions(+), 226 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > All patches applied as 5.11 material (with a minor subject edit in the > > > last patch), thanks! > > > > > > > Patch 4/8 was not acked. I was about to push a new version in which I > > fix the scenario that Jeremy mentioned. > > Well, it wasn't clear to me what you wanted to do about it. >
Sorry about the confusion. > > Would you like me to push that > > as a separate patch on top of this series, > > Yes, please. Sent at: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pm/20201117184920.17036-1-ionela.voine...@arm.com/ Thank you, Ionela.
