Re: [PATCH 00/31] CPUFreq: Implement light weight ->target(): for 3.13

[Viresh Kumar]

On 13 August 2013 04:17, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Monday, August 12, 2013 11:18:36 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> Currently prototype of cpufreq_drivers target routines is:
>>
>> int target(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, unsigned int target_freq,
>>       unsigned int relation);
>>
>> And most of the drivers call cpufreq_frequency_table_target() to get a valid
>> index of their frequency table which is closest to the target_freq. And they
>> don't use target_freq and relation after it.
>>
>> So, it makes sense to just do this work in cpufreq core before calling
>> cpufreq_frequency_table_target() and simply pass index instead. But this can be
>> done only with drivers which expose their frequency table with cpufreq core. For
>> others we need to stick with the old prototype of target() until those drivers
>> are converted to expose frequency tables.
>>
>> So, in order not to break those special drivers first patch renames ->target() to
>> ->target_old() and the following patches will define the new prototype and
>> convert existing drivers one by one.
>
> Super-ugly.

Thanks. I expected something similar.. :)

> Please just keep the old .target() as is, add a new callback and switch the
> suitable drivers to using it.  You may call the new one .target_index() or
> something along these lines.

I thought of implementing with this name but then thought maybe earlier name
is good enough and can be kept and so went for the *Super-ugly* solution..

Will be fixed :)
--
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/