[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160722004405.GA27987@graphite.smuckle.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 17:44:05 -0700
From: Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@...aro.org>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@...aro.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Juri Lelli <Juri.Lelli@....com>,
Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] cpufreq: add cpufreq_driver_resolve_freq()
On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 04:36:48PM -0700, Steve Muckle wrote:
> As another alternative, this could be caught in cpufreq driver
> initialization? I believe you suggested that originally, but I avoided
> it as I didn't want to have to implement resolve_freq() for every
> target() style driver. It sounds like there aren't many though.
Going back and checking I see I was thinking of your suggestion that
cpufreq_register_driver() check that only target() drivers offer a
resolve_freq() callback. I put a comment for this in cpufreq.h but not a
check - I could add a check in another patch if you like.
Long term as I was mentioning in the other thread I think it'd be good
if the current target() drivers were modified to supply resolve_freq(),
and that cpufreq_register_driver() were again changed to require it for
those drivers.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists