On Fri, 26 Jul 2013 15:56:53 +0530 Viresh Kumar wrote,

On 25 July 2013 22:03, Lukasz Majewski [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c

b/drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c index 9ae1871..175172d9 100644

--- a/drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c

@@ -270,6 +270,9 @@ static int exynos_cpufreq_cpu_exit(struct

cpufreq_policy *policy)

 static struct freq_attr *exynos_cpufreq_attr[] = {
        &cpufreq_freq_attr_scaling_available_freqs,
+#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_BOOST_SW

  	    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ [*]

Use ARM_EXYNOS_CPU_FREQ_BOOST_SW instead.

For the reasons explained at [PATCH v6 5/8] I would prefer to leave [*]
here.

quoted

+       &cpufreq_freq_attr_scaling_boost_freqs,
+#endif
        NULL,
 };

@@ -332,6 +335,9 @@ static int __init exynos_cpufreq_probe(struct

platform_device *pdev)

        locking_frequency = exynos_getspeed(0);

+#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_BOOST_SW
+       exynos_driver.boost_supported = true;
+#endif

So, why here and not in the definition of exynos_driver?

Right. I will move this to struct cpufreq_driver exynos_driver.

quoted

        register_pm_notifier(&exynos_cpufreq_nb);

        if (cpufreq_register_driver(&exynos_driver)) {
--
1.7.10.4

-- 
Best regards,

Lukasz Majewski

Samsung R&D Institute Poland (SRPOL) | Linux Platform Group