[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160205071324.GG21792@vireshk>
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2016 12:43:24 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc: Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>,
Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@...aro.org>,
Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/10] cpufreq: governor: Put governor structure into
common_dbs_data
On 05-02-16, 03:16, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
>
> For the ondemand and conservative governors (generally, governors
> that use the common code in cpufreq_governor.c), there are two static
> data structures representing the governor, the struct governor
> structure (the interface to the cpufreq core) and the struct
> common_dbs_data one (the interface to the cpufreq_governor.c code).
>
> There's no fundamental reason why those two structures have to be
> separate. Moreover, if the struct governor one is included into
> struct common_dbs_data, it will be possible to reach the latter from
> the policy via its policy->governor pointer, so it won't be necessary
> to pass a separate pointer to it around. For this reason, embed
> struct governor in struct common_dbs_data.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> Acked-by: Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists