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

[Viresh Kumar]

On 7 May 2014 06:30, Nishanth Menon <nm@xxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.

Exactly and that's what we discussed earlier. I don't want to change the
default behavior at all, as somebody may request the ascending order
tomorrow :)

@Jonghwan: Please consider doing this:
- Don't play with the order of frequencies in table.
- Instead initialize .driver_data filed with values that you need to write
in the registers for all frequencies. i.e. 0 for highest frequency and
FREQ_COUNT-1 for lowest one.
--
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/