All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Cc: linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
	Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov <dbaryshkov@gmail.com>,
	Fabian Frederick <fabf@skynet.be>,
	Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
	"open list:ACPI" <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
	"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
	"open list:FRAMEBUFFER LAYER" <linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@osadl.org>,
	Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>,
	Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@ti.com>,
	Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] cpufreq: remove redundant CPUFREQ_INCOMPATIBLE notifier event
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 06:09:18 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150910003918.GL5266@linux> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4897937.47p7WB7CoU@vostro.rjw.lan>

On 10-09-15, 01:26, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, August 03, 2015 08:36:14 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > What's being done from CPUFREQ_INCOMPATIBLE, can also be done with
> > CPUFREQ_ADJUST. There is nothing special with CPUFREQ_INCOMPATIBLE
> > notifier.
> 
> The above part of the changelog is a disaster to me. :-(
> 
> It not only doesn't explain what really goes on, but it's actively confusing.
> 
> What really happens is that the core sends CPUFREQ_INCOMPATIBLE notifications
> unconditionally right after sending the CPUFREQ_ADJUST ones, so the former is
> just redundant and it's more efficient to merge the two into one.

Undoubtedly this looks far better :)

But, isn't this series already applied some time back ?

> > Kill CPUFREQ_INCOMPATIBLE and fix its usage sites.
> > 
> > This also updates the numbering of notifier events to remove holes.
> 
> Why don't you redefine CPUFREQ_ADJUST as 1 instead?

So that there is no request with 0? Yeah that could have been done.
-- 
viresh

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Cc: linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
	Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov <dbaryshkov@gmail.com>,
	Fabian Frederick <fabf@skynet.be>,
	Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
	"open list:ACPI" <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
	"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
	"open list:FRAMEBUFFER LAYER" <linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@osadl.org>,
	Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>,
	Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@ti.com>,
	Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] cpufreq: remove redundant CPUFREQ_INCOMPATIBLE notifier event
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 00:51:18 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150910003918.GL5266@linux> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4897937.47p7WB7CoU@vostro.rjw.lan>

On 10-09-15, 01:26, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, August 03, 2015 08:36:14 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > What's being done from CPUFREQ_INCOMPATIBLE, can also be done with
> > CPUFREQ_ADJUST. There is nothing special with CPUFREQ_INCOMPATIBLE
> > notifier.
> 
> The above part of the changelog is a disaster to me. :-(
> 
> It not only doesn't explain what really goes on, but it's actively confusing.
> 
> What really happens is that the core sends CPUFREQ_INCOMPATIBLE notifications
> unconditionally right after sending the CPUFREQ_ADJUST ones, so the former is
> just redundant and it's more efficient to merge the two into one.

Undoubtedly this looks far better :)

But, isn't this series already applied some time back ?

> > Kill CPUFREQ_INCOMPATIBLE and fix its usage sites.
> > 
> > This also updates the numbering of notifier events to remove holes.
> 
> Why don't you redefine CPUFREQ_ADJUST as 1 instead?

So that there is no request with 0? Yeah that could have been done.
-- 
viresh

  reply	other threads:[~2015-09-10  0:39 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-08-03  3:06 [PATCH 0/7] CPUFreq: Minor cleanups Viresh Kumar
2015-08-03  3:06 ` [PATCH 1/7] cpufreq: remove redundant CPUFREQ_INCOMPATIBLE notifier event Viresh Kumar
2015-08-03  3:18   ` Viresh Kumar
2015-08-03  3:06   ` Viresh Kumar
2015-09-09 22:59   ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-09-09 23:26     ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-09-10  0:39     ` Viresh Kumar [this message]
2015-09-10  0:51       ` Viresh Kumar
2015-09-10  0:53       ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-09-10  0:53         ` Rafael J. Wysocki
     [not found]         ` <57057201.9030109@codeaurora.org>
2016-04-06 21:21           ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-04-06 21:29             ` Saravana Kannan
2016-04-06 21:29               ` Saravana Kannan
2016-04-06 21:29               ` Saravana Kannan
2016-04-06 21:45               ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-04-06 21:45                 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-04-06 21:49                 ` Saravana Kannan
2016-04-06 21:49                   ` Saravana Kannan
2015-08-03  3:06 ` [PATCH 2/7] cpufreq: use memcpy() to copy policy Viresh Kumar
2015-08-03  3:06   ` Viresh Kumar
2015-08-03  3:06 ` [PATCH 3/7] cpufreq: update user_policy.* on success Viresh Kumar
2015-08-03  3:06   ` Viresh Kumar
2015-08-03  3:06 ` [PATCH 4/7] cpufreq: remove redundant 'governor' field from user_policy Viresh Kumar
2015-08-03  3:06   ` Viresh Kumar
2015-08-03  3:06 ` [PATCH 5/7] cpufreq: remove redundant 'policy' " Viresh Kumar
2015-08-03  3:06   ` Viresh Kumar
2015-08-03  3:06 ` [PATCH 6/7] cpufreq: rename cpufreq_real_policy as cpufreq_user_policy Viresh Kumar
2015-08-03  3:06   ` Viresh Kumar
2015-08-03  3:06 ` [PATCH 7/7] cpufreq: drop !cpufreq_driver check from cpufreq_parse_governor() Viresh Kumar
2015-08-03  3:06   ` Viresh Kumar
2015-08-28 15:26 ` [PATCH 0/7] CPUFreq: Minor cleanups Rafael J. Wysocki

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20150910003918.GL5266@linux \
    --to=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
    --cc=corbet@lwn.net \
    --cc=dbaryshkov@gmail.com \
    --cc=fabf@skynet.be \
    --cc=hofrat@osadl.org \
    --cc=lenb@kernel.org \
    --cc=linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org \
    --cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=plagnioj@jcrosoft.com \
    --cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
    --cc=rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=tomi.valkeinen@ti.com \
    --cc=wsa@the-dreams.de \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.