Re: Regression on cpufreq in v3.12-rc1

[Linus Walleij]

On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 7:05 PM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 20 September 2013 21:09, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>>> @@ -1460,6 +1460,9 @@ unsigned int cpufreq_get(unsigned int cpu)
>>>  {
>>>         unsigned int ret_freq = 0;
>>>
>>> +       if (cpufreq_disabled() || !cpufreq_driver)
>>> +               return -ENOENT;
>>> +
>>
>> But given that a cpufreq driver is just like any other driver, isn't the
>> proper thing to do to return -EPROBE_DEFER?
>
> Its not a probe and so that error type doesn't look correct to me..
> Also, its only taking care of things when this routine is called without
> a cpufreq driver and so it should be fine..

Well given the use case here I agree, keep with the -ENOENT.

Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/