On 7/15/2010 1:30 PM, Ai Li wrote:
I'm ok with the general idea, but have a few comments about the
implementation
> Signed-off-by: Ai Li<aili@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/cpuidle/governors/menu.c | 59 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> include/linux/cpuidle.h | 4 ++
> 2 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/governors/menu.c b/drivers/cpuidle/governors/menu.c
> index 1b12870..b3854cc 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpuidle/governors/menu.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpuidle/governors/menu.c
> @@ -271,6 +271,9 @@ static int menu_select(struct cpuidle_device *dev)
>
> detect_repeating_patterns(data);
>
> + if (dev->prepare)
> + dev->prepare(dev, data->predicted_us);
>
I don't like the idea of passing predicted_us here.
the states and their updates should be independent of how long we think
we'll be idle;
it's up to the menu governor to then pick a good one, not for the
platform to muck with things
based on this.
Also I would like the cpuidle code, not the governor, to call this
prepare function.
The need to call ->prepare is governor independent....
+ if (dev->compare_power) {
I'm not a big fan of this as a flag; either we always do this, which I
can understand, or we sort things, which is also fine with me.
Doing this condition like this.... not a fan.
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
