Re: [PATCH] Fix problem with cpufreq_pndemand or cpufreq_conservative

2012-12-28 Thread Larry Finger
On 12/28/2012 06:33 PM, Fabio Baltieri wrote: On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 05:45:54PM -0600, Larry Finger wrote: I wonder if that's avoidable? The intention is not to create an additional module, clearly. It appears not to be possible. I don't know enough about to kmake to understand why it is for

Re: [PATCH] Fix problem with cpufreq_pndemand or cpufreq_conservative

2012-12-28 Thread Fabio Baltieri
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 05:45:54PM -0600, Larry Finger wrote: > >I wonder if that's avoidable? The intention is not to create an additional > >module, clearly. > > It appears not to be possible. I don't know enough about to kmake to > understand why it is forcing a new module. Perhaps some expert

Re: [PATCH] Fix problem with cpufreq_pndemand or cpufreq_conservative

2012-12-28 Thread Larry Finger
On 12/28/2012 05:01 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: On Friday, December 28, 2012 04:17:24 PM Larry Finger wrote: Since commit 2aacdff entitled "cpufreq: Move common part from governors to separate file", whenever the drivers that depend on this new file (cpufreq_ondemand or cpufreq_conservative) ar

Re: [PATCH] Fix problem with cpufreq_pndemand or cpufreq_conservative

2012-12-28 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Friday, December 28, 2012 04:17:24 PM Larry Finger wrote: > Since commit 2aacdff entitled "cpufreq: Move common part from governors to > separate file", whenever the drivers that depend on this new file > (cpufreq_ondemand or cpufreq_conservative) are built as modules, a new module > named cp