[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160722151641.GQ3122@ubuntu>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 08:16:42 -0700
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@...aro.org>
Cc: "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 21-07-16, 17:44, Steve Muckle wrote:
> 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.
That can be done as we aren't supporting the ->resolve_freq() callback
for ->target_index() drivers.
> 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.
There is no need for us to force this, its really optional for such
platforms. Worst case, schedutil wouldn't work at the best, so what?
Its a platform driver's choice, isn't it ?
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists