On 28 March 2014 15:49, Lukasz Majewski <l.majew...@samsung.com> wrote:
> One little remark - since cpufreq_frequency_tables are defined as
> static it seems like we don't need to explicitly specify the 0, for
> flags field.
>
> Something like {, L13, 200 * 1000}, shall be enough.
This looks awkward, writing zero is better. The other option was to do
it like this:
{.driver_data = L13, .frequency = 200 * 1000}
But I didn't wanted to make such changes in this patch.
>> +/* Special Values of .flags field */
>> +#define CPUFREQ_BOOST_FREQ 0x1
>
> Maybe (1 << 0) to explicitly show that those are flags.
Will do that in case I resend this patch, otherwise it wouldn't
harm for now.
>> struct cpufreq_frequency_table {
>> + unsigned int flags;
>> unsigned int driver_data; /* driver specific data, not
>
> The driver_data shall be changed to int. However I suppose that it will
> be done at separate patch.
I am not planning to change it for now. People storing 'int' into this
field would read it back into 'int' and so things would work as normal
I suppose.
--
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/
