[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKohpomLW17B=Sk42tczzDF+VGwn7hT521osWPi5TcgqpCPZ_w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 10:33:59 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Dirk Brandewie <dirk.brandewie@...il.com>,
Dirk Brandewie <dirk.j.brandewie@...el.com>,
Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Patrick Marlier <patrick.marlier@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Add exit_prepare callback to the cpufreq_driver interface.
On 18 March 2014 17:46, Srivatsa S. Bhat
<srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> Agreed. As far as I understand, for ->target drivers, today we use GOV_STOP
> to stop managing the CPU going offline. And for ->setpolicy drivers, we will
> use this new callback to achieve the same goal.
So a better question would be: What's the purpose of ->stop() call for a policy?
Stop managing CPUs of that policy? Or even do something on CPUs of a policy
before CPUs are offlined?
Probably in the current solution Dirk is doing both these things..
And so I thought maybe its better not to restrict ->stop() to just
setpolicy() drivers.
--
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