[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160203105513.GA3469@vireshk>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2016 16:25:13 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>
Cc: Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Lists linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@...aro.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
dietmar.eggemann@....com,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] cpufreq: governor: Create separate sysfs-ops
On 03-02-16, 10:51, Juri Lelli wrote:
> I also think that sched-dvfs should not use cpufreq_governor.c. It is
> useful boilerplate code for ondemand and conservative, as they share lot
> of data structures and how they work, but it doesn't necessarily suit
> everybody's needs, IMHO.
>
> OTOH, fixing the current issue in the best way we can come up with has
> still value of course :).
Right. cpufreq_governor.c is more about the technique where we do load
evaluation using deferred timers and workqueues, which isn't required
for sched-dvfs.
We can just move the common parts, like, governor_show/governor_store
routines, and the new macros being added here.
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists