On 22 February 2013 05:23, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Monday, February 11, 2013 01:20:02 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> +config CPU_FREQ_HAVE_MULTIPLE_POLICIES
>> + bool
>> +
>
> So I suppose some architectures will select this, right?
Yes. And they have to enable have_multiple_policies too from their
drivers init code.
> What architecture they are?
Atleast all big.LITTLE SoCs. Or any other SoC that has multiple policy
structs alive at any time.
> I'm not really sure I like this. ->
>> static inline struct kobject *
>> get_governor_parent_kobj(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>> {
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_HAVE_MULTIPLE_POLICIES
>> if (policy->have_multiple_policies)
>> return &policy->kobj;
>> else
>> +#endif
>> return cpufreq_global_kobject;
>
> -> I wonder why don't you arrange things so that policy->kobj is always
> returned, but it points to cpufreq_global_kobject in case there's only one
> (i.e. make policy->kobj a pointer)?
policy->kobj is a struct instance rather than a pointer and it is widely used
within cpufreq.c. If you don't like this one then we can add another entry
into struct policy like: gov_sysfs_parent.
--
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
