On 11/24/2012 04:05 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Saturday, November 17, 2012 03:50:48 PM Borislav Petkov wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 02:13:38PM -0500, Mark Langsdorf wrote: >>> 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. >> >> That maybe so but this newly added loop which is only Calxeda-relevant >> is called in cpufreq_stat_notifier_trans, which is the frequency change >> notifier call, AFAICT. Drivers only go through the loop if they can't find an exact frequency. So every driver that isn't Calxeda shouldn't see the issue. >> So you probably need to find a slick way of detecting calxeda hw >> somewhere along the init path of cpufreq_stats_init and set a >> hw-specific flag instead of adding that cost to each driver. > > Mark, I suppose you'd like me to take this series for v3.8, but the above > comment from Boris has to be addressed for that. I think I'd rather drop this particular patch and not have cpufreq_stat support for Highbank. Redesigning it to meet Boris' requirements is going to take more time than I currently have available. Would it be acceptable to drop this patch and fix the issues with patches 4 and 6 to get the series in? --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
