On 10-09-15, 01:26, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Monday, August 03, 2015 08:36:14 AM Viresh Kumar wrote: > > What's being done from CPUFREQ_INCOMPATIBLE, can also be done with > > CPUFREQ_ADJUST. There is nothing special with CPUFREQ_INCOMPATIBLE > > notifier. > > The above part of the changelog is a disaster to me. :-( > > It not only doesn't explain what really goes on, but it's actively confusing. > > What really happens is that the core sends CPUFREQ_INCOMPATIBLE notifications > unconditionally right after sending the CPUFREQ_ADJUST ones, so the former is > just redundant and it's more efficient to merge the two into one. Undoubtedly this looks far better :) But, isn't this series already applied some time back ? > > Kill CPUFREQ_INCOMPATIBLE and fix its usage sites. > > > > This also updates the numbering of notifier events to remove holes. > > Why don't you redefine CPUFREQ_ADJUST as 1 instead? So that there is no request with 0? Yeah that could have been done. -- viresh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
