Re: [PATCH 1/2] cpufreq: Return error if ->get() failed in cpufreq_update_policy()

[Viresh Kumar]

On 18 February 2014 07:49, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 18 February 2014 03:30, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Monday, February 17, 2014 02:25:34 PM Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>>> Why go to no_policy when we can actually set things right?
>>>
>>> Anyway, I am not arguing against this strongly. I just wanted to share my
>>> thoughts, since this is the approach that made more sense to me.
>>
>> And I agree with that.  In particular, since we're going to set the new
>> policy *anyway* at this point, we can adjust the current frequency just fine
>> in the process, can't we?
>
> Though I still feel that it wouldn't be the right thing to do as get()
> just can't
> return zero. Actually I was planning to place a WARN() over its return value
> of zero.
>
> Anyway, as two of the three are in favor of this we can get that in.. But how
> would that work?
>
> - What frequency should we call cpufreq_driver_target ?
> - Remember that it wouldn't do anything if policy->cur is same as new freq.
> - Also remember that drivers need special attention if new freq is > old
> freq or vice versa. As they will change voltage before or after change here.
> And because we actually don't know what frequency we are at currently, how
> will we decide that?

@Rafael/Srivatsa: Ping!!
--
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/