On Tuesday 23 March 2010 17:28:36 Robert Schöne wrote: > Am Montag, den 22.03.2010, 06:57 -0700 schrieb Arjan van de Ven: > > On 3/22/2010 0:04, Robert Schöne wrote: > > > Am Sonntag, den 21.03.2010, 17:42 -0700 schrieb Arjan van de Ven: > > >> On 3/20/2010 14:37, Thomas Renninger wrote: > > >> > > >>> It also seem to be (hopefully) a minor feature for timechart, so this should > > >>> not hurt that much (yet). > > >> > > >> It's actually a major feature for timechart, and one of the key things I and a bunch of others > > >> inside Intel use timechart for. > > >> > > > It's a major feature for us too. > > > I suppose, the cpufreq_notify_transition calls are correct (meaning > > > being called for all related cpus) for every driver. So there's still > > > the option to include it in the POST_CHANGE section of this function. > > > Could this be okay for the both of you? > > > > post change would work... that gets frequency afaik.. > Are you ok with this too, Thomas? You mean hooking it into cpufreq_stat_notifier_trans() in drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c? That sounds like the right approach. But what assures that this is executed on the correct cpu, which seem to be necessary with the current trace function? Thomas -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
