2013/8/16 Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>: > On 16 August 2013 13:24, Lan Tianyu <lantianyu1986@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Sorry for misoperation. > > No Problem... > >> One concern. Target() callback may return before changing >> cpufreq actually due to some check failures. After this change, prechange >> event will be triggered when these check failures take place. I am not sure >> whether this should be took into account. > > Yes, if you see the first patch of this series, it takes this into > account.. In case > target() failed and returned an error, we simply notify the POST CHANGE > notification with old frequencies instead of new ones. I believe that would be > enough.. Yes, I have seen it but I missed the following two patches because they are not in the linux-pm tree. You moved the cpufreq_frequency_table_target() to cpufreq core and before notifying PRE CHANGE notification. The major check has been done. Now I think it's ok. Thanks for explanation. http://www.spinics.net/lists/cpufreq/msg06970.html http://www.spinics.net/lists/cpufreq/msg06896.html Reviewed-by: Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@xxxxxxxxx> > > This is exactly what acpi-cpufreq and others are doing currently. > > Hope I answered your question well? > > -- > viresh -- Best regards Tianyu Lan -- 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
