[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKohpo=UjSqzE+Jg0s3taykHu4VinNUvLLhRm6pUXiyUc5F-3w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 16:31:58 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@...el.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Lists linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
Patch Tracking <patches@...aro.org>,
"cpufreq@...r.kernel.org" <cpufreq@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>, jinchoi@...adcom.com,
Sebastian Capella <sebastian.capella@...aro.org>,
"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: suspend/resume governors with PM notifiers
On 18 November 2013 16:27, Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@...el.com> wrote:
> How about introducing a resume/suspend callback pointer or list(if there
> are several places that need to deal with cpu resume/suspend) in the
> struct cpu and populate it in the cpufreq_add_dev()?
>
> The suspend/resume() of cpu_subsys needs to check the callback pointer
> and run it if available.
That's almost a new infrastructure then and looks more hackish :)
Apart from that even cpufreq would be a bit hacky as we don't really need
per-cpu callbacks..
--
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