On 16-07-19, 12:06, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 11:49 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > Now that cpufreq core supports taking QoS requests for min/max cpu > > frequencies, lets migrate rest of the users to using them instead of the > > policy notifiers. > > Technically, this still is linux-next only. :-) True :) > > The CPUFREQ_NOTIFY and CPUFREQ_ADJUST events of the policy notifiers are > > removed as a result, but we have to add CPUFREQ_CREATE_POLICY and > > CPUFREQ_REMOVE_POLICY events to it for the acpi stuff specifically. So > > the policy notifiers aren't completely removed. > > That's not entirely accurate, because arch_topology is going to use > CPUFREQ_CREATE_POLICY now too. Yeah, I thought about that while writing this patchset and coverletter. But had it not been required for ACPI, I would have done it differently for the arch-topology code. Maybe direct calling of arch-topology routine from cpufreq core. I wanted to get rid of the policy notifiers completely but I couldn't find a better way of doing it for ACPI stuff. > > Boot tested on my x86 PC and ARM hikey board. Nothing looked broken :) > > > > This has already gone through build bot for a few days now. > > So I'd prefer patches [5-8] to go right after the first one and then > do the cleanups on top of that, as somebody may want to backport the > essential changes without the cleanups. In the exceptional case where nobody finds anything wrong with the patches (highly unlikely), do you want me to resend with reordering or you can reorder them while applying? There are no dependencies between those patches anyway. -- viresh _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
