On Monday, November 26, 2012 07:57:30 AM Mark Langsdorf wrote: > 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? Yes, it would, but please resubmit ASAP. Thanks, Rafael -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- 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
