RE: [PATCH 1/2] PM / OPP: Use list_for_each_entry_reverse instead of list_for_each_entry

[Jonghwan Choi <jhbird.choi@samsung.com>]

Hi~

> > Most of the cpufreq table is sorted in descending order.
> 
> Which part of kernel says that?
> 
-> I couldn't check all. Sorry.

> > But when cpufreq table is made from dev_pm_opp_init_cpufreq_table, it
> > is sorted in ascending order. So in some case to make cpufreq table
> > with descending order it needs an extra work.
> 
> Order of this table shouldn't matter at all in cpufreq layer..
-> You are right. But 5440 cpufreq driver write an index number instead of
clk divider value
for change DVFS. And our another(will submit) also write an index number for
changing DVFS.
As you said, order of table shouldn't matter at all in cpufreq layer. Then,
could this can be applied?
In our case, We want to use index 0 for P0 and index 1 for P1.....

Thanks

Best Ragrds.   



> -----Original Message-----
> From: viresh.linux@gmail.com [mailto:viresh.linux@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> Viresh Kumar
> Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 2:33 PM
> To: Jonghwan Choi
> Cc: open list; Rafael J. Wysocki; Len Brown
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] PM / OPP: Use list_for_each_entry_reverse instead
> of list_for_each_entry
> 
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Jonghwan Choi <jhbird.choi@samsung.com>
> wrote:
> > Most of the cpufreq table is sorted in descending order.
> 
> Which part of kernel says that?
> 
> > But when cpufreq table is made from dev_pm_opp_init_cpufreq_table, it
> > is sorted in ascending order. So in some case to make cpufreq table
> > with descending order it needs an extra work.
> 
> Order of this table shouldn't matter at all in cpufreq layer..