Re: [PATCH 1/5] cpufreq: handle SW coordinated CPUs

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Wednesday, November 28, 2012 11:51:20 AM Fabio Baltieri wrote:
> Hello Rafael,

Hi,

> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:05:52PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > >  static inline void dbs_timer_init(struct dbs_data *dbs_data,
> > > -		struct cpu_dbs_common_info *cdbs, unsigned int sampling_rate)
> > > +				  struct cpu_dbs_common_info *cdbs,
> > > +				  unsigned int sampling_rate,
> > > +				  int cpu)
> > >  {
> > >  	int delay = delay_for_sampling_rate(sampling_rate);
> > > +	struct cpu_dbs_common_info *cdbs_local = dbs_data->get_cpu_cdbs(cpu);
> > > +	struct od_cpu_dbs_info_s *od_dbs_info;
> > > +
> > > +	cancel_delayed_work_sync(&cdbs_local->work);
> > > +
> > > +	if (dbs_data->governor == GOV_ONDEMAND) {
> > > +		od_dbs_info = dbs_data->get_cpu_dbs_info_s(cpu);
> > > +		od_dbs_info->sample_type = OD_NORMAL_SAMPLE;
> > > +	}
> > 
> > The patch looks good in general except for the special case above.
> > 
> > Why exactly is it necessary?
> 
> Now that you point it out... it's not!  It was part of ondemand init and
> moved in cpufreq_governor_dbs, I forgot to take it out the way.
> 
> Also, I think that cancel_delayed_work_sync can be removed too.
> 
> Should I send an updated version as soon as I get an ack for the other
> patches in the series or do you want me to wait until 3.8-rc1?

Well, if it's not very urgent, I'd prefer it to wait a bit longer,
get some more testing and so on.

Thanks,
Rafael


-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/