From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Set CPUFREQ_ASYNC_NOTIFICATION for drivers handling notification Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 13:52:51 +0530 Message-ID: <535A1B5B.9000705@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Viresh Kumar Cc: rjw@rjwysocki.net, mroos@linux.ee, linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, cpufreq@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 04/25/2014 01:22 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > CPUFREQ_ASYNC_NOTIFICATION was initially designed for drivers which don't want > core to send notifications for them as they wouldn't finish frequency > transitions in ->target_index(). > And let's keep it that way. Overloading ASYNC_NOTIFICATION with other meanings is a bad idea. > But there were other kinds of drivers as well who don't have straight forward > implementations of ->target_index() routines and wanted to handle notifications > themselves. > Looking at longhaul, powernow-k6 and powernow-k7, I think we can safely remove the extra notifications from them and let them depend on the cpufreq core's set of notifications. The patchset I posted just now uses that design. Regards, Srivatsa S. Bhat