[PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: governors: remove redundant code

[Viresh Kumar]

On 25 October 2012 02:42, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw at sisk.pl> wrote:
> On Wednesday 24 of October 2012 21:43:46 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Wednesday 24 of October 2012 11:37:13 Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> > On 22 October 2012 14:16, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar at linaro.org> wrote:
>> > > On 20 October 2012 01:42, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar at linaro.org> wrote:
>> > >> Initially ondemand governor was written and then using its code conservative
>> > >> governor is written. It used a lot of code from ondemand governor, but copy of
>> > >> code was created instead of using the same routines from both governors. Which
>> > >> increased code redundancy, which is difficult to manage.
>> > >>
>> > >> This patch is an attempt to move common part of both the governors to
>> > >> cpufreq_governor.c file to come over above mentioned issues.
>> > >>
>> > >> This shouldn't change anything from functionality point of view.
>> > >>
>> > >> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar at linaro.org>
>> >
>> > For everybody else, this patch is already pushed by Rafael in his linux-next
>> > branch.
>>
>> Well, not yet, although I'm going to do that.
>
> Or I would if it still applied.  Unfortunately, though, it doesn't apply any
> more to my linux-next branch due to some previous changes in it.
>
> Care to rebase?

Ahh.. I got confused by the following patch:

commit 83a73f712f2275033b2dc7f5c664988a1823ebc7
Author: viresh kumar <viresh.kumar at linaro.org>
Date:   Tue Oct 23 01:28:05 2012 +0200

    cpufreq: Move common part from governors to separate file, v2

    Multiple cpufreq governers have defined similar get_cpu_idle_time_***()
    routines. These routines must be moved to some common place, so that all
    governors can use them.

    So moving them to cpufreq_governor.c, which seems to be a better place for
    keeping these routines.

    Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar at linaro.org>
    Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki at intel.com>


Actually, i should i have replied on this patch (and i forgot). I
wanted you to skip
this patch, as the latest patch already had this change.

But now i see commits from others on cpufreq_governor.c file.

Hmm... So you can keep your tree as it is and apply the attached
patch. It is the
same patch getting discussed in this thread. Just rebased over your latest next.

You must also apply my other patches fixing sparse warnings (they can be applied
over this patch, tested), to fix sparse warnings from cpufreq.

--
viresh
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0001-cpufreq-governors-remove-redundant-code.patch
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 67140 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20121025/7b6d8c31/attachment-0001.obj>