[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170710093051.axnd7drdnsxgiu6f@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 11:30:51 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Russell King <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/10] cpufreq: provide data for frequency-invariant
load-tracking support
On Sat, Jul 08, 2017 at 02:09:37PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Anyway, if everyone agrees that doing it in the core is the way to go (Peter?),
> why don't you introduce a __weak function for setting policy->cur and
> override it from your arch so as to call arch_set_freq_scale() from there?
>
So I'm terminally backlogged and my recent break didn't help any with
that.
I'm at a total loss as to what is proposed here and why we need it. I
tried reading both the Changelog and patch but came up empty.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists