Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752511AbcC3FHi (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 30 Mar 2016 01:07:38 -0400
Received: from mail-pa0-f45.google.com ([209.85.220.45]:33359 "EHLO
	mail-pa0-f45.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751381AbcC3FHg (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 30 Mar 2016 01:07:36 -0400
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 10:37:32 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Cc: Linux PM list <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@linaro.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Update][PATCH v7 6/7] cpufreq: Support for fast frequency
 switching
Message-ID: <20160330050732.GE8773@vireshk-i7>
References: <7262976.zPkLj56ATU@vostro.rjw.lan>
 <25154681.B5BGJ94JlQ@vostro.rjw.lan>
 <16969991.55r1UouI6A@vostro.rjw.lan>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <16969991.55r1UouI6A@vostro.rjw.lan>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 491
Lines: 17

On 30-03-16, 03:47, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Index: linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
> @@ -843,6 +883,7 @@ static int acpi_cpufreq_cpu_exit(struct
>  	pr_debug("acpi_cpufreq_cpu_exit\n");
>  
>  	if (data) {
> +		policy->fast_switch_possible = false;

Is this done just for keeping code symmetric or is there a logical advantage
of this? Just for my understanding, not saying that it is wrong.

Otherwise, it looks good

Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>

-- 
viresh