Hi All,

The first patch in this series is meant to address the failure discussed in

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pm/20250922125929.453444-1-shawnguo2@yeah.net/

but in a different way than proposed by Shawn.

The second one is a CPPC cpufreq driver fix preventing it from using an
overly large transition delay in the cases when that delay cannot be
obtained from the platform firmware.

Patch [3/4] makes CPPC use a specific symbol instead of CPUFREQ_ETERNAL for
signaling error conditions while attempting to retrieve a transition latency
value from the platform firmware.

The last patch removes CPUFREQ_ETERNAL (which has no users any more) from
cpufreq, including all references to it in cpufreq documentation.

Thanks!

On 25-09-25, 17:42, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> The first patch in this series is meant to address the failure discussed in
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pm/20250922125929.453444-1-shawnguo2@yeah.net/
> 
> but in a different way than proposed by Shawn.
> 
> The second one is a CPPC cpufreq driver fix preventing it from using an
> overly large transition delay in the cases when that delay cannot be
> obtained from the platform firmware.
> 
> Patch [3/4] makes CPPC use a specific symbol instead of CPUFREQ_ETERNAL for
> signaling error conditions while attempting to retrieve a transition latency
> value from the platform firmware.
> 
> The last patch removes CPUFREQ_ETERNAL (which has no users any more) from
> cpufreq, including all references to it in cpufreq documentation.

Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>

-- 
viresh