On Wednesday, August 07, 2013 05:03:59 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 7 August 2013 17:00, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha > <Sudeep.KarkadaNagesha@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Any particular reason we need this check in all drivers after your > > commit: 5a1c0228 "cpufreq: Avoid calling cpufreq driver's target() > > routine if target_freq == policy->cur" > > > > I think it can removed from all drivers, am I missing something ? > > Yeah.. Just a bit though :) > > So, cpufreq core checks this when we call target for any frequency. > Now, cpufreq driver actually does a cpufreq_frequency_table_target() > and so the frequency may vary than what is requested, in case > requested frequency isn't picked from the table. > > In such cases we check it again to be sure that we aren't at this > frequency already.. > > Earlier I thought of calling cpufreq_frequency_table_target() in the > core before calling target but dropped the idea as I wasn't sure of > the side effects. > > @Rafael: Do you see why we shouldn't/can't call > cpufreq_frequency_table_target() from the core itself and so drivers > never need to do it? It looks like it would require us to redefine .target() to take next_state instead of target_freq (at least in the acpi-cpufreq case), wouldn't it? Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
 |