On Monday, November 18, 2013 09:37:39 PM Lan Tianyu wrote: > On 11/18/2013 07:01 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > On 18 November 2013 16:27, Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> How about introducing a resume/suspend callback pointer or list(if there > >> are several places that need to deal with cpu resume/suspend) in the > >> struct cpu and populate it in the cpufreq_add_dev()? > >> > >> The suspend/resume() of cpu_subsys needs to check the callback pointer > >> and run it if available. > > > > That's almost a new infrastructure then and looks more hackish :) > > The resume/suspend() must be stored in the struct driver->pm? :) > > > Apart from that even cpufreq would be a bit hacky as we don't really need > > per-cpu callbacks.. > > > > This maybe depends on where we want the issue to be fixed, right? > The cpufreq driver also can fix the issue if we run their cpu_driver > resume/suspend callback earlier. > > Another point, I just see cpuidle_resume() and cpuidle_pause() are > called in the dpm_resume_noirq and dpm_suspend_noirq(). Not sure whether > this can be applied to cpufreq. I don't see why not. Thanks! -- 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
