On 2013年11月22日 15:49, viresh kumar wrote: > On Sunday 17 November 2013 09:43 AM, viresh kumar wrote: >> On 16 November 2013 21:06, Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> But I don't really like the solution here. You are handling frozen for EXIT in >> cpufreq-core and for INIT in governor. That doesn't look like the right >> approach. There are out of tree governors too (I know we don't care about them >> :)), and those also need to adapt with some policy made at cpufreq-core level. >> >> I told you that I had another solution for this problem, pretty similar to >> yours. It looked like this: > > Hi Lan, > Hi Viresh: > There is some confusion going on here :) > I think you also are in the Cc list and replied the mail.:) https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/11/21/273 > There were few problems in the approach in your patch, which I have mentioned > above, and Rafael agreed to them.. I only saw the out-of-tree governor issue your mentioned but where they are? How upstream kernel cares them? > >> But after the PM notifiers patch I even don't want this to go.. I will make sure >> that that patch goes in, in one form or another :) > > And I was still trying to get a better solution in place of these changes. And > was going on the suggestions you gave about calling cpufreq callbacks from > dpm_{suspend|resume}_noirq() calls.. And I am on my way to get things fixed that > way. And so we don't actually need this patch anymore (I just saw that you have > sent another version of it, probably because Rafael asked? Don't know what > happened there :)).. > > So, I will try to get something working soon for you and Nishanth.. > -- 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
