On 01/04/2013 10:49 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 3 January 2013 19:55, Srivatsa S. Bhat
> wrote:
>> I took a quick look at the problem you described above, and the cpufreq
>> code..
>> If we cannot avoid calling cpufreq_add_dev() from cpufreq_remove_dev(), then
>> I can't
>> think of anything be
On 3 January 2013 19:55, Srivatsa S. Bhat
wrote:
> I took a quick look at the problem you described above, and the cpufreq code..
> If we cannot avoid calling cpufreq_add_dev() from cpufreq_remove_dev(), then
> I can't
> think of anything better than what your patch does.
Good :)
> BTW, off-top
Hi Viresh,
On 12/16/2012 11:20 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> This is how the core works:
> cpufreq_driver_unregister()
> - subsys_interface_unregister()
>- for_each_cpu() call cpufreq_remove_dev(), i.e. 0,1,2,3,4 when we
> unregister.
>
> cpufreq_remove_dev():
> - Remove policy node
> - C
This is how the core works:
cpufreq_driver_unregister()
- subsys_interface_unregister()
- for_each_cpu() call cpufreq_remove_dev(), i.e. 0,1,2,3,4 when we
unregister.
cpufreq_remove_dev():
- Remove policy node
- Call cpufreq_add_dev() for next cpu, sharing mask with removed cpu.
i.e.
4 matches
Mail list logo