Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] Add stop callback to the cpufreq_driver interface.

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Tuesday, March 18, 2014 12:25:14 PM Dirk Brandewie wrote:
> On 03/18/2014 12:08 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> > On 03/18/2014 10:52 PM, dirk.brandewie@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >> From: Dirk Brandewie <dirk.j.brandewie@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >
> > I don't mean to nitpick, but generally its easier to deal with
> > patchsets if you post the subsequent versions in fresh email threads.
> > Otherwise it can get a bit muddled along with too many other email
> > discussions in the same thread :-(
> >
> >> Changes:
> >> v2->v3
> >> Changed the calling of the ->stop() callback to be conditional on the
> >> core being the last core controlled by a given policy.
> >>
> >
> > Wait, why? I'm sorry if I am not catching up with the discussions on
> > this issue quickly enough, but I don't see why we should make it
> > conditional on _that_. I thought we agreed that we should make it
> > conditional in the sense that ->stop() should be invoked only for
> > ->setpolicy drivers, right?
> 
> This was done at Viresh's suggestion since thought there might be value
> for ->target drivers.
> 
> Any of the options work for me
>     called only for set_policy scaling drivers

And that's what we should do *today* in my opinion, unless we want to add
it to any ->target() drivers *right* now.  Do we want that?

Rafael

--
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/