Message ID | dd0f0186a7a3cc759d48ea1c7d3c6494e69db6b9.1420177186.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
On 4 January 2015 at 03:58, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote: > On Friday, January 02, 2015 11:16:45 AM Viresh Kumar wrote: >> CPUFREQ_UPDATE_POLICY_CPU notifications were used only from cpufreq-stats which >> doesn't use it anymore. Remove them. >> >> This also fixes the value of other notification macros, hopefully all users are >> using macro's instead of direct values and nothing will break :) > > The paragraph above is completely unclear to me. Do you mean that it changes > the definitions of CPUFREQ_CREATE_POLICY and CPUFREQ_REMOVE_POLICY too which > may affect code that uses numbers instead of these symbols? Yeah. I will try to rewrite it a bit.. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c index b88894578fd1..6d97dffeaaf7 100644 --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c @@ -1094,9 +1094,6 @@ static int update_policy_cpu(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, unsigned int cpu, policy->cpu = cpu; up_write(&policy->rwsem); - blocking_notifier_call_chain(&cpufreq_policy_notifier_list, - CPUFREQ_UPDATE_POLICY_CPU, policy); - return 0; } diff --git a/include/linux/cpufreq.h b/include/linux/cpufreq.h index 2d99f12e4199..43013eac26fd 100644 --- a/include/linux/cpufreq.h +++ b/include/linux/cpufreq.h @@ -368,9 +368,8 @@ static inline void cpufreq_resume(void) {} #define CPUFREQ_INCOMPATIBLE (1) #define CPUFREQ_NOTIFY (2) #define CPUFREQ_START (3) -#define CPUFREQ_UPDATE_POLICY_CPU (4) -#define CPUFREQ_CREATE_POLICY (5) -#define CPUFREQ_REMOVE_POLICY (6) +#define CPUFREQ_CREATE_POLICY (4) +#define CPUFREQ_REMOVE_POLICY (5) #ifdef CONFIG_CPU_FREQ int cpufreq_register_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned int list);