Re: [PATCH V2 0/3] cpufreq: add support for intermediate (stable)

[Doug Anderson]

Viresh,

On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 16 May 2014 20:50, Doug Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Right, so I think on exynos no functionality will be broken once
>> Thomas's cpufreq-cpu0 change lands (udelay will only run long, never
>> short).  ...but from the purist standpoint we will be transitioning
>> from 1.6 GHz => 800 MHz => 1.7 GHz without any notification about the
>> 800 MHz.   You could imagine someone registering for cpufreq
>> notifications that would care about the 800MHz transition.
>>
>> ...so it seems like we could wait for Thomas's patches to land as-is
>> (since they make things better) and then atop that see about adding
>> support for intermediate frequencies to cpufreq-cpu0.
>
> Hmm, don't know. I think these patches aren't aimed at solving exynos's
> problem but rather a general solution which must have already been there.
>
> If some platform can work without it then its fine, but otherwise they should
> use it, even if udelay does work for them..
>
> So, I would propose to go ahead with these patches in linux-next and lets
> see who all would use it.

Ah.  I wasn't suggesting to wait on your patches.  I think it's fine
to get your patches landed and to get Thomas's patches landed (without
actually intermediate frequencies).  ...and then both sets have landed
then we can modify cpufreq-cpu0 / exynos to actually use the
intermediate freq.

-Doug
--
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/