On 26 December 2013 08:17, Viresh Kumar <viresh.ku...@linaro.org> wrote: > On 26 December 2013 06:35, Rafael J. Wysocki <r...@rjwysocki.net> wrote: >> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com> >> Subject: cpufreq: Clean up after a failing light-weight initialization >> >> If cpufreq_policy_restore() returns NULL during system resume, >> __cpufreq_add_dev() should just fall back to the full initialization >> instead of returning an error, because that may actually make things >> work. Moreover, it should not leave stale fallback data behind after >> it has failed to restore a previously existing policy. >> >> This change is based on Viresh Kumar's work. >> >> Reported-by: Bjørn Mork <bj...@mork.no> >> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com> >> --- > > Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.ku...@linaro.org>
I think there is nothing much different in this patch compared to what Bjorn tested. So you can probably push that now and let him test linux-next later once he is back? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
