On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:25 PM, Fabio Baltieri
<fabio.baltieri@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 02:01:27PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> On 31 January 2013 13:44, Fabio Baltieri <fabio.baltieri@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > Implement a generic helper function policy_is_shared() to replace the
>> > current dbs_sw_coordinated_cpus() at cpufreq level, so that it can be
>> > used by code other than cpufreq governors.
>> >
>> > Suggested-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> > Signed-off-by: Fabio Baltieri <fabio.baltieri@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> > ---
>> > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c | 2 +-
>> > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c | 8 --------
>> > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.h | 1 -
>> > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c | 2 +-
>> > include/linux/cpufreq.h | 5 +++++
>>
>> Great,
>>
>> But, you missed few places:
>>
>> drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c: if (bios_with_sw_any_bug &&
>> cpumask_weight(policy->cpus) == 1) {
>> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c: if (policy &&
>> (cpumask_weight(policy->cpus) == 1)) {
>
> This doesn't look like the same thing to me! Isn't this check here just
> to trigger during init (exit) on the first (last) cpu? How would you
> replace it?
I don't think i am wrong, but i can be :)
So, i would replace these as:
drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c: if (bios_with_sw_any_bug &&
cpumask_weight(policy->cpus) == 1) {
AS
drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c: if (bios_with_sw_any_bug &&
!policy_is_shared(policy)) {
similarly for the other one too. The whole point is about checking if policy
is managing just one cpu or multiple cpus.
--
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
