On 13 September 2013 21:24, Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 06:32:32PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: >> Most of the drivers do following in their ->target_index() routines: >> >> struct cpufreq_freqs freqs; >> freqs.old = old freq... >> freqs.new = new freq... >> >> cpufreq_notify_transition(policy, &freqs, CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE); >> >> /* Change rate here */ >> >> cpufreq_notify_transition(policy, &freqs, CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE); >> >> This is replicated over all cpufreq drivers today and there doesn't exists a >> good enough reason why this shouldn't be moved to cpufreq core instead. >> >> Earlier patches have added support in cpufreq core to do cpufreq notification on >> frequency change, this one removes it from this driver. >> >> Some related minor cleanups are also done along with it. >> >> Cc: Russell King <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Shouldn't this patch set CPUFREQ_ASYNC_NOTIFICATION somewhere? As far as I can see, sa11x0 completes frequency transition from within target() and so it does it synchronously.. And so it doesn't need to set CPUFREQ_ASYNC_NOTIFICATION... Am I missing something? -- 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
