[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKohpo=57bYHsx+m5wevuB0_4fhTK813T5TXnUYZh64gQ1YdWA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 10:45:41 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc: Lists linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.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>,
Pierre Ossman <pierre-list@...man.eu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: don't call cpufreq_update_policy() on CPU addition
On 17 February 2014 05:51, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net> wrote:
> On Friday, February 14, 2014 04:30:41 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> cpufreq_update_policy() is called from two places currently. From a workqueue
>> handled queued from cpufreq_bp_resume() for boot CPU and from
>> cpufreq_cpu_callback() whenever a CPU is added.
>>
>> The first one makes sure that boot CPU is running on the frequency present in
>> policy->cpu. But we don't really need a call from cpufreq_cpu_callback(),
>> because we always call cpufreq_driver->init() (which will set policy->cur
>> correctly) whenever first CPU of any policy is added back. And so every policy
>> structure is guaranteed to have the right frequency in policy->cur.
>
> That sounds good, but doing the extra cpufreq_update_policy() shouldn't actually
> hurt, should it?
Yeah, it shouldn't hurt badly..
> So, that would be a cleanup rather than a fix, right?
Hmm, yeah..
--
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