Re: [PATCH 1/2] cpufreq: try to resume policies which failed on last resume

[Viresh Kumar]

On 26 December 2013 08:17, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 26 December 2013 06:35, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
>> 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 <bjorn@xxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>
> Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>

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 majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/