On 04/25/2014 01:22 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > CPUFREQ_ASYNC_NOTIFICATION was initially designed for drivers which don't want > core to send notifications for them as they wouldn't finish frequency > transitions in ->target_index(). > And let's keep it that way. Overloading ASYNC_NOTIFICATION with other meanings is a bad idea. > But there were other kinds of drivers as well who don't have straight forward > implementations of ->target_index() routines and wanted to handle notifications > themselves. > Looking at longhaul, powernow-k6 and powernow-k7, I think we can safely remove the extra notifications from them and let them depend on the cpufreq core's set of notifications. The patchset I posted just now uses that design. Regards, Srivatsa S. Bhat -- 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
