On 18 February 2014 07:49, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 18 February 2014 03:30, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Monday, February 17, 2014 02:25:34 PM Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote: >>> Why go to no_policy when we can actually set things right? >>> >>> Anyway, I am not arguing against this strongly. I just wanted to share my >>> thoughts, since this is the approach that made more sense to me. >> >> And I agree with that. In particular, since we're going to set the new >> policy *anyway* at this point, we can adjust the current frequency just fine >> in the process, can't we? > > Though I still feel that it wouldn't be the right thing to do as get() > just can't > return zero. Actually I was planning to place a WARN() over its return value > of zero. > > Anyway, as two of the three are in favor of this we can get that in.. But how > would that work? > > - What frequency should we call cpufreq_driver_target ? > - Remember that it wouldn't do anything if policy->cur is same as new freq. > - Also remember that drivers need special attention if new freq is > old > freq or vice versa. As they will change voltage before or after change here. > And because we actually don't know what frequency we are at currently, how > will we decide that? @Rafael/Srivatsa: Ping!! -- 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
