Re: [PATCH 1/3] PM / OPP: Add support for descending order for cpufreq table

[Nishanth Menon]

On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 6:43 PM, Jonghwan Choi <jhbird.choi@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi

Please dont top post. it is usually frowned upon.

>
> My holiday is finished.
>
> I implemented another cpufreq driver. And that driver also have to use exynos_sort_descend_freq_table().
> Then exynos5440 and new cpufreq have a duplicate function.(exynos_sort_descend_freq_table().
> So I want to solve it.

As discussed in the thread, creating stuff that are common into a
common file, and even isolating this into cpufreq specific solution
might be good.

[1] now moves that entire logic of table creation to be cpufreq
specific - we could consider modifier functions to them.

In some quick tests by reversing table [2], I cant see any difference
in behavior in ascending[3] or descending[4] order of the cpufreq
table.

So, we could do [2] as default as well, if it is determined to impact
no one else making any form of assumptions on table ordering - but it
might be preferable for drivers not to depend on framework ordering of
data as things could change in the future.

[1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4115141/ +
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4115101/
[2] http://slexy.org/view/s21HyCUhXK
[3] http://slexy.org/view/s202xTUG59
[4] http://slexy.org/view/s20ewFa6PW


Regards,
Nishanth Menon
--
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/