Re: [PATCH 0/8] cppc_cpufreq: fix, clarify and improve support

[Ionela Voinescu]

On Tuesday 17 Nov 2020 at 17:30:33 (+0100), Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
[..]
> > > > Ionela Voinescu (8):
> > > >   cppc_cpufreq: fix misspelling, code style and readability issues
> > > >   cppc_cpufreq: clean up cpu, cpu_num and cpunum variable use
> > > >   cppc_cpufreq: simplify use of performance capabilities
> > > >   cppc_cpufreq: replace per-cpu structures with lists
> > > >   cppc_cpufreq: use policy->cpu as driver of frequency setting
> > > >   cppc_cpufreq: clarify support for coordination types
> > > >   cppc_cpufreq: expose information on frequency domains
> > > >   acpi: fix NONE coordination for domain mapping failure
> > > >
> > > >  .../ABI/testing/sysfs-devices-system-cpu      |   3 +-
> > > >  drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c                      | 126 +++---
> > > >  drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c              |   2 +-
> > > >  drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c                | 358 +++++++++++-------
> > > >  include/acpi/cppc_acpi.h                      |  14 +-
> > > >  5 files changed, 277 insertions(+), 226 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > --
> > >
> > > All patches applied as 5.11 material (with a minor subject edit in the
> > > last patch), thanks!
> > >
> >
> > Patch 4/8 was not acked. I was about to push a new version in which I
> > fix the scenario that Jeremy mentioned.
> 
> Well, it wasn't clear to me what you wanted to do about it.
> 

Sorry about the confusion.

> > Would you like me to push that
> > as a separate patch on top of this series,
> 
> Yes, please.

Sent at:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pm/20201117184920.17036-1-ionela.voinescu@xxxxxxx/

Thank you,
Ionela.