On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 09:56:40PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 03:12:33AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> The most important change from the previous version is that the
> >> ->fast_switch() callback takes an additional "relation" argument
> >> and now the governor can use it to choose a selection method.
> >
> >> +unsigned int acpi_cpufreq_fast_switch(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> >> + unsigned int target_freq,
> >> + unsigned int relation)
> >
> > Would it make sense to replace the {target_freq, relation} pair with
> > something like the CPPC {min_freq, max_freq} pair?
>
> Yes, it would in general, but since I use __cpufreq_driver_target() in
> the "slow driver" case, that would need to be reworked too for
> consistency. So I'd prefer to do that later.
OK, fair enough.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
