Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-142031-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 11:54:07 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To: lizhe <sensor1010@163.com>
Cc: rafael <rafael@kernel.org>, linux-pm <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: exit() callback is optional
Message-ID: <20240412062407.ntahibzv6xsbrnxs@vireshk-i7>
References: <b97964653d02225f061e0c2a650b365c354b98c8.1712900945.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
 <5759bc29.32d04.18ed0ef5037.Coremail.sensor1010@163.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5759bc29.32d04.18ed0ef5037.Coremail.sensor1010@163.com>

On 12-04-24, 14:12, lizhe wrote:
> I was the first one to find this problem, so the patch should be submitted by me.

:)

This patch doesn't take away any of the work you have done. What you are trying
to do is simplify drivers with empty exit callback and the unused return value
of the callback.

And what I am trying to do is fix a bug in the cpufreq core, which only makes
your other patches more acceptable.

So no, you never identified the problem this patch is trying to solve.

Please don't feel that anyone is trying to take away your hardwork. That's not
how things are done here. We appreciate anyone who is spending time to make the
kernel better.

If I were to take credit of your work, then I would have sent a big patch to fix
the exit() callback issue you are trying to solve, with randomly sent patches.

-- 
viresh