Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753234Ab3FEJfn (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Jun 2013 05:35:43 -0400 Received: from sema.semaphore.gr ([78.46.194.137]:60950 "EHLO sema.semaphore.gr" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752829Ab3FEJfm (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Jun 2013 05:35:42 -0400 Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2013 12:35:27 +0300 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] cpufreq: Remove unused function __cpufreq_driver_getavg Message-ID: From: Stratos Karafotis To: Viresh Kumar Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , " H. Peter Anvin" , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, cpufreq@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by mail.home.local id r559Zo0M027299 Content-Length: 836 Lines: 21 I think you are right. I will reorder 2/3 and 3/3 with the change you suggested. Thanks, Stratos Viresh Kumar wrote: >On 4 June 2013 20:36, Stratos Karafotis wrote: >> On 06/04/2013 08:19 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: >>> Should this be done in 3/3 ? >>> >> >> acpi-cpufreq does not use mperf after 2/3. Why should we compile it with >> CONFIG_X86_ACPI_CPUFREQ? >> Do you want me to move the change in 3/3? > >I somehow feel now that 3/3 should come before 2/3 and then this change >should be merged into it. And at the end we can have this patch as 3/3.. > >What do you say? core should go last and users/drivers must go first. ????{.n?+???????+%?????ݶ??w??{.n?+????{??G?????{ay?ʇڙ?,j??f???h?????????z_??(?階?ݢj"???m??????G????????????&???~???iO???z??v?^?m???? ????????I?