[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6210802.HjCYHcMl5j@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 03:21:51 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: cpufreq@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, robin.randhawa@....com,
Steve.Bannister@....com, Liviu.Dudau@....com,
charles.garcia-tobin@....com, linaro-dev@...ts.linaro.org,
francescolavra.fl@...il.com, toddpoynor@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/4] cpufreq: Add per policy governor-init/exit infrastructure
On Friday, February 22, 2013 07:38:12 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 22 February 2013 05:05, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
> > On Monday, February 11, 2013 01:20:00 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
>
> >> This patch is inclined towards providing this infrastructure. Because we are
> >> required to allocate governor's resources dynamically now, we must do it at
> >> policy creation and end. And so got CPUFREQ_GOV_POLICY_INIT/EXIT.
> >
> > Are those new events NOPs now?
>
> No. These are used atleast for ondemand & conservative.
They will be after the next patch, you mean? :-)
> >> +#define CPUFREQ_GOV_POLICY_INIT 4
> >> +#define CPUFREQ_GOV_POLICY_EXIT 4
> >
> > Why don't you use different values here?
> >
> > If you need only one value, one #define should be sufficient.
>
> Naah, something happened... I got fixed this locally but couldn't
> get that into the commit somehow. EXIT should have 5 here.
Well, it appeared so from the next patch ...
Thanks,
Rafael
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists