[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2248504.pAVebap2qN@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2014 02:26:20 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To: Wang Weidong <wangweidong1@...wei.com>
Cc: viresh.kumar@...aro.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, guohanjun@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] fix some problems for cpufreq
On Friday, November 28, 2014 10:43:37 AM Wang Weidong wrote:
> Hi Rafael and Viresh
>
> Sorry to trouble you again. As for:
> "acpi-cpufreq: get the cur_freq from acpi_processor_performance states"
> I do it again, and add the other patch.
>
> patch #1: acpi-cpufreq: make the freq_table store the same freq value
>
> I think it can work. The set of available states which come
> from acpi won't change. Just like the power would be remove,
> the acpi driver will do that:
> call
> ->acpi_processor_ppc_has_changed
> ->cpufreq_update_policy
> ->acpi_ppc_notifier_block.notifier_call
> ->acpi_processor_ppc_notifier
> ->cpufreq_verify_within_limits
> The progress will change the policy's min_freq and max_freq
> while it won't change the set of states(freq_tables).
OK, so the above information needs to go into the changelog of patch [1/2].
Also, please clarify the problem description in that changelog, it is very
difficult to understand the way it is now.
> patch #2: cpufreq: show the real avail freqs with the freq_table
>
> when the min_freq and max_freq change, we should sync the availble
> freqs.
Why? Do any other cpufreq drivers do that?
Rafael
--
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