On Friday, February 22, 2013 07:44:23 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> 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.
Yeah, policy attributes. Never mind.
> If you don't like this one then we can add another entry
> into struct policy like: gov_sysfs_parent.
I don't know. This is going to look kind of ugly this way or another I think.
Maybe I'll figure out something ...
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
