From: linux-pm-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [linux-pm-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mark Langsdorf [mark.langsdorf@xxxxxxxxxxx] > 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. >> >> 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. I went back and looked at implementing this suggestion. Although cpufreq_driver has a flag field, no part of cpufreq_driver is directly passed to the cpufreq_stat code. Only cpufreq_policy is. It's cleaner to do passes of the while loop than to copy the cpufreq_driver.flag field into cpufreq_policy and then store it again in cpufreq_stats. --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
