[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d7272b91c74148c56de5f1c27dc7b7c7.squirrel@www.codeaurora.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 09:00:03 -0000
From: skannan@...eaurora.org
To: "Viresh Kumar" <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: "Saravana Kannan" <skannan@...eaurora.org>,
"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Set policy to non-NULL only after all hotplug
online work is done
Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 24 February 2014 14:17, <skannan@...eaurora.org> wrote:
>> Sorry, not sure I understand what you mean.
>>
>> I agree, wording in my commit text might be unclear. I'll fix it after
>> we
>> agree on the code fix. In the MSM case, each CPU has it's own policy.
>>
>> I'm assuming your original complaint was about my confusing wording.
>> Maybe
>> that's not what you were pointing out?
>
> In your case each CPU has a separate policy structure as they have
> separately
> controllable clocks. But you also said that CPU0 is setting CPU1's
> governor to
> NULL. I don't see that happening. Each CPU sets its own governor to NULL
> on
> init().
When I said "CPU0 is setting CPU1's governor to NULL", I meant
thread/context running in CPU0 is setting CPU1's governor as part of
CPU1's ONLINE notifier.
-Saravana
--
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation
--
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