Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755343AbaD2GKb (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Apr 2014 02:10:31 -0400 Received: from mail-ob0-f182.google.com ([209.85.214.182]:56935 "EHLO mail-ob0-f182.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754192AbaD2GKa (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Apr 2014 02:10:30 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <001301cf636e$f6032f70$e2098e50$@samsung.com> References: <000601cf636b$3c2b39b0$b481ad10$@samsung.com> <001301cf636e$f6032f70$e2098e50$@samsung.com> Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 11:40:29 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] PM / OPP: Use list_for_each_entry_reverse instead of list_for_each_entry From: Viresh Kumar To: Jonghwan Choi Cc: open list , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Len Brown Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 29 April 2014 11:20, Jonghwan Choi wrote: > -> You are right. But 5440 cpufreq driver write an index number instead of > clk divider value > for change DVFS. And our another(will submit) also write an index number for > changing DVFS. > As you said, order of table shouldn't matter at all in cpufreq layer. Then, > could this can be applied? These two patches aren't going to fly I believe. Depending on the order of table for setting hardware is inviting trouble. > In our case, We want to use index 0 for P0 and index 1 for P1..... What I would recommend is, use .driver_data field to hold what has to be written to hardware for any frequency. And then simply use driver_data instead of index. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/