[PATCH v4 5/8] mfd: db8500-prcmu: Use cpufreq_for_each_entry macro for iteration

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Tuesday, April 22, 2014 12:27:17 PM Lee Jones wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> 
> > On Tuesday, April 22, 2014 08:15:41 AM Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > The cpufreq core now supports the cpufreq_for_each_entry macro helper
> > > > for iteration over the cpufreq_frequency_table, so use it.
> > > > 
> > > > It should have no functional changes.
> > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Stratos Karafotis <stratosk at semaphore.gr>
> > > > ---
> > > 
> > > It would be good to have a changelog which describes the differences
> > > between the versions, so we can keep track.
> > > 
> > > >  drivers/mfd/db8500-prcmu.c | 19 ++++++++-----------
> > > >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > So it looks like I already applied v2 of this patch to my tree. What
> > > changed in v3 and v4? Should I remove that patch from MFD and apply
> > > this one instead?
> > 
> > The reason why v4 was sent is because I asked for it.
> > 
> > And if you applied [5/8] without [1/8], it won't work, because the macro is
> > introduced by that patch.
> 
> That's right, which is why I mailed you about it:
> 
>   > > > Applied untested by me.
>   > >
>   > > Wouldn't build. Let it go via Rafael.
>   >
>   > Rafael, would you mind creating a branch from this patch set that we
>   > can both pull from please?
> 
> > If that's the case, please drop [5/8] and let me handle the entire series.
> 
> I'm happy for you to apply the series and send me a pull-request for
> either a) the entire series or b) just the patches which touch MFD and
> any subsequent decencies. Or I can apply them and send you one.

OK, I'll create a separate branch with those patches and will let you know
where it is.

Kind regards,
Rafael