[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160203110821.GB3469@vireshk>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2016 16:38:21 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>
Cc: Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>, linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, skannan@...eaurora.org,
peterz@...radead.org, mturquette@...libre.com,
steve.muckle@...aro.org, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
morten.rasmussen@....com, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] cpufreq: Get rid of ->governor_enabled and its lock
On 03-02-16, 11:05, Juri Lelli wrote:
> It should be easy to rebase that set (or a part of it) on top of your
> and/or Rafael changes. I realize that there are multiple sets of changes
> under discussion; so, please tell me how do you, and Rafael, want to
> proceed about this.
Yeah, please wait for a bit for Rafael to apply both the series (if
they pass the litmus test) to PM tree :)
> But, I guess any other governor that will bypass cpufreq_governor.c, it
> will also have to implement such checks. I was just proposing to state
> this somewhere, so that we don't forget.
We can surely add a comment for that.
But I would like to review the state after these patches are applied,
as we may be able to guarantee that from cpufreq-core instead.
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists