[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKohpom7yk3Zq5JABZ6T+Z_AcMn5G1hoswZK8T=viYv0fp0mcg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 13:29:58 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Lan Tianyu <lantianyu1986@...il.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Lists linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
Patch Tracking <patches@...aro.org>,
"cpufreq@...r.kernel.org" <cpufreq@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r kernel org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/34] cpufreq: acpi: remove calls to cpufreq_notify_transition()
On 16 August 2013 13:24, Lan Tianyu <lantianyu1986@...il.com> wrote:
> Sorry for misoperation.
No Problem...
> One concern. Target() callback may return before changing
> cpufreq actually due to some check failures. After this change, prechange
> event will be triggered when these check failures take place. I am not sure
> whether this should be took into account.
Yes, if you see the first patch of this series, it takes this into
account.. In case
target() failed and returned an error, we simply notify the POST CHANGE
notification with old frequencies instead of new ones. I believe that would be
enough..
This is exactly what acpi-cpufreq and others are doing currently.
Hope I answered your question well?
--
viresh
--
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