Re: 2.6.12-rc3 cpufreq compile error on ppc32
On Thu, 2005-04-21 at 09:26 +0200, Colin Leroy wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> One of Ben's patches ("ppc32: Fix cpufreq problems") went in 2.6.12-
> rc3, but it depended on another patch that's still in -mm only:
> add-suspend-method-to-cpufreq-core.patch
>
> In addition to this, there's a third patch in -mm that fixes warnings
> and line length to the previous patch, but it doesn't apply cleanly
> anymore. It's named add-suspend-method-to-cpufreq-core-warning-fix.patch
Yup, please, Andrew, get those 2 to Linus.
Ben.
> Here's an updated version. HTH,
>
> Signed-off-by: Colin Leroy <colin@colino.net>
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c 2005-04-21 09:14:28.000000000 +0200
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c 2005-04-21 09:18:11.000000000 +0200
> @@ -955,7 +955,6 @@
> {
> int cpu = sysdev->id;
> unsigned int ret = 0;
> - unsigned int cur_freq = 0;
> struct cpufreq_policy *cpu_policy;
>
> dprintk("resuming cpu %u\n", cpu);
> @@ -995,21 +994,24 @@
> cur_freq = cpufreq_driver->get(cpu_policy->cpu);
>
> if (!cur_freq || !cpu_policy->cur) {
> - printk(KERN_ERR "cpufreq: resume failed to assert current frequency is what timing core thinks it is.\n");
> + printk(KERN_ERR "cpufreq: resume failed to assert "
> + "current frequency is what timing core "
> + "thinks it is.\n");
> goto out;
> }
>
> if (unlikely(cur_freq != cpu_policy->cur)) {
> struct cpufreq_freqs freqs;
>
> - printk(KERN_WARNING "Warning: CPU frequency is %u, "
> - "cpufreq assumed %u kHz.\n", cur_freq, cpu_policy->cur);
> + printk(KERN_WARNING "Warning: CPU frequency is %u, cpufreq assumed "
> + "%u kHz.\n", cur_freq, cpu_policy->cur);
>
> freqs.cpu = cpu;
> freqs.old = cpu_policy->cur;
> freqs.new = cur_freq;
>
> - notifier_call_chain(&cpufreq_transition_notifier_list, CPUFREQ_RESUMECHANGE, &freqs);
> + notifier_call_chain(&cpufreq_transition_notifier_list,
> + CPUFREQ_RESUMECHANGE, &freqs);
> adjust_jiffies(CPUFREQ_RESUMECHANGE, &freqs);
>
> cpu_policy->cur = cur_freq;
>
>
--
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Reply to: