On 11/13/2012 10:24 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 10:35:49AM -0600, Mark Langsdorf wrote: >> The function is buried pretty deep in the cpufreq_stat code. It didn't >> seem appropriate to make it a function pointer as part of struct >> cpufreq_driver. > > Right, what's cpufreq-speak for > > if (Calxeda) > shift by 10 > > ? > > Better yet, add a flag or a bitfield called "minimize_jitter" or similar > and set it only on your hardware... Doing it in two passes has a similar effect: systems that have exact frequencies will get caught in the first pass when the values match. But adding a flag makes sense. --Mark Langsdorf Calxeda, Inc. -- 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
