On 11-08-21, 10:48, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 10-08-21, 13:35, Quentin Perret wrote: > > This series adds more code than it removes, > > Sadly yes :( > > > and the unregistration is > > not a fix as we don't ever remove the EM tables by design, so not sure > > either of these points are valid arguments. > > I think that design needs to be looked over again, it looks broken to > me everytime I land onto this code. I wonder why we don't unregister > stuff. Coming back to this series. We have two options, based on what I proposed here: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pm/20210811050327.3yxrk4kqxjjwaztx@vireshk-i7/ 1. Let cpufreq core register with EM on behalf of cpufreq drivers. 2. Update drivers to use ->ready() callback to do this stuff. I am fine with both :) -- viresh
