* [PATCH 1/7] cpufreq: remove redundant CPUFREQ_INCOMPATIBLE notifier event
[not found] <cover.1438571116.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
@ 2015-08-03 3:18 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-09-09 22:59 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Viresh Kumar @ 2015-08-03 3:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rafael Wysocki
Cc: linaro-kernel, linux-pm, Viresh Kumar, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov,
Fabian Frederick, Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard,
Jonathan Corbet, Len Brown, open list:ACPI,
open list:DOCUMENTATION, open list:FRAMEBUFFER LAYER, open list,
Nicholas Mc Guire, Russell King, Tomi Valkeinen, Wolfram Sang
What's being done from CPUFREQ_INCOMPATIBLE, can also be done with
CPUFREQ_ADJUST. There is nothing special with CPUFREQ_INCOMPATIBLE
notifier.
Kill CPUFREQ_INCOMPATIBLE and fix its usage sites.
This also updates the numbering of notifier events to remove holes.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
---
Documentation/cpu-freq/core.txt | 7 ++-----
drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c | 2 +-
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 4 ----
drivers/cpufreq/ppc_cbe_cpufreq_pmi.c | 4 ++--
drivers/video/fbdev/pxafb.c | 1 -
drivers/video/fbdev/sa1100fb.c | 1 -
include/linux/cpufreq.h | 9 ++++-----
7 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/cpu-freq/core.txt b/Documentation/cpu-freq/core.txt
index 70933eadc308..ba78e7c2a069 100644
--- a/Documentation/cpu-freq/core.txt
+++ b/Documentation/cpu-freq/core.txt
@@ -55,16 +55,13 @@ transition notifiers.
----------------------------
These are notified when a new policy is intended to be set. Each
-CPUFreq policy notifier is called three times for a policy transition:
+CPUFreq policy notifier is called twice for a policy transition:
1.) During CPUFREQ_ADJUST all CPUFreq notifiers may change the limit if
they see a need for this - may it be thermal considerations or
hardware limitations.
-2.) During CPUFREQ_INCOMPATIBLE only changes may be done in order to avoid
- hardware failure.
-
-3.) And during CPUFREQ_NOTIFY all notifiers are informed of the new policy
+2.) And during CPUFREQ_NOTIFY all notifiers are informed of the new policy
- if two hardware drivers failed to agree on a new policy before this
stage, the incompatible hardware shall be shut down, and the user
informed of this.
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c b/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c
index 47af702bb6a2..bb01dea39fdc 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c
@@ -83,7 +83,7 @@ static int acpi_processor_ppc_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb,
if (ignore_ppc)
return 0;
- if (event != CPUFREQ_INCOMPATIBLE)
+ if (event != CPUFREQ_ADJUST)
return 0;
mutex_lock(&performance_mutex);
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
index 76a26609d96b..293f47b814bf 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
@@ -2206,10 +2206,6 @@ static int cpufreq_set_policy(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
blocking_notifier_call_chain(&cpufreq_policy_notifier_list,
CPUFREQ_ADJUST, new_policy);
- /* adjust if necessary - hardware incompatibility*/
- blocking_notifier_call_chain(&cpufreq_policy_notifier_list,
- CPUFREQ_INCOMPATIBLE, new_policy);
-
/*
* verify the cpu speed can be set within this limit, which might be
* different to the first one
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/ppc_cbe_cpufreq_pmi.c b/drivers/cpufreq/ppc_cbe_cpufreq_pmi.c
index d29e8da396a0..7969f7690498 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/ppc_cbe_cpufreq_pmi.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/ppc_cbe_cpufreq_pmi.c
@@ -97,8 +97,8 @@ static int pmi_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb,
struct cpufreq_frequency_table *cbe_freqs;
u8 node;
- /* Should this really be called for CPUFREQ_ADJUST, CPUFREQ_INCOMPATIBLE
- * and CPUFREQ_NOTIFY policy events?)
+ /* Should this really be called for CPUFREQ_ADJUST and CPUFREQ_NOTIFY
+ * policy events?)
*/
if (event = CPUFREQ_START)
return 0;
diff --git a/drivers/video/fbdev/pxafb.c b/drivers/video/fbdev/pxafb.c
index 7245611ec963..94813af97f09 100644
--- a/drivers/video/fbdev/pxafb.c
+++ b/drivers/video/fbdev/pxafb.c
@@ -1668,7 +1668,6 @@ pxafb_freq_policy(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val, void *data)
switch (val) {
case CPUFREQ_ADJUST:
- case CPUFREQ_INCOMPATIBLE:
pr_debug("min dma period: %d ps, "
"new clock %d kHz\n", pxafb_display_dma_period(var),
policy->max);
diff --git a/drivers/video/fbdev/sa1100fb.c b/drivers/video/fbdev/sa1100fb.c
index 89dd7e02197f..dcf774c15889 100644
--- a/drivers/video/fbdev/sa1100fb.c
+++ b/drivers/video/fbdev/sa1100fb.c
@@ -1042,7 +1042,6 @@ sa1100fb_freq_policy(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val,
switch (val) {
case CPUFREQ_ADJUST:
- case CPUFREQ_INCOMPATIBLE:
dev_dbg(fbi->dev, "min dma period: %d ps, "
"new clock %d kHz\n", sa1100fb_min_dma_period(fbi),
policy->max);
diff --git a/include/linux/cpufreq.h b/include/linux/cpufreq.h
index bde1e567b3a9..bedcc90c0757 100644
--- a/include/linux/cpufreq.h
+++ b/include/linux/cpufreq.h
@@ -369,11 +369,10 @@ static inline void cpufreq_resume(void) {}
/* Policy Notifiers */
#define CPUFREQ_ADJUST (0)
-#define CPUFREQ_INCOMPATIBLE (1)
-#define CPUFREQ_NOTIFY (2)
-#define CPUFREQ_START (3)
-#define CPUFREQ_CREATE_POLICY (4)
-#define CPUFREQ_REMOVE_POLICY (5)
+#define CPUFREQ_NOTIFY (1)
+#define CPUFREQ_START (2)
+#define CPUFREQ_CREATE_POLICY (3)
+#define CPUFREQ_REMOVE_POLICY (4)
#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_FREQ
int cpufreq_register_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned int list);
--
2.4.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/7] cpufreq: remove redundant CPUFREQ_INCOMPATIBLE notifier event
2015-08-03 3:18 ` [PATCH 1/7] cpufreq: remove redundant CPUFREQ_INCOMPATIBLE notifier event Viresh Kumar
@ 2015-09-09 22:59 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-09-10 0:51 ` Viresh Kumar
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Rafael J. Wysocki @ 2015-09-09 22:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Viresh Kumar
Cc: linaro-kernel, linux-pm, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov,
Fabian Frederick, Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard,
Jonathan Corbet, Len Brown, open list:ACPI,
open list:DOCUMENTATION, open list:FRAMEBUFFER LAYER, open list,
Nicholas Mc Guire, Russell King, Tomi Valkeinen, Wolfram Sang
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.
> 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?
> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> ---
> Documentation/cpu-freq/core.txt | 7 ++-----
> drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c | 2 +-
> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 4 ----
> drivers/cpufreq/ppc_cbe_cpufreq_pmi.c | 4 ++--
> drivers/video/fbdev/pxafb.c | 1 -
> drivers/video/fbdev/sa1100fb.c | 1 -
> include/linux/cpufreq.h | 9 ++++-----
> 7 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/cpu-freq/core.txt b/Documentation/cpu-freq/core.txt
> index 70933eadc308..ba78e7c2a069 100644
> --- a/Documentation/cpu-freq/core.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/cpu-freq/core.txt
> @@ -55,16 +55,13 @@ transition notifiers.
> ----------------------------
>
> These are notified when a new policy is intended to be set. Each
> -CPUFreq policy notifier is called three times for a policy transition:
> +CPUFreq policy notifier is called twice for a policy transition:
>
> 1.) During CPUFREQ_ADJUST all CPUFreq notifiers may change the limit if
> they see a need for this - may it be thermal considerations or
> hardware limitations.
>
> -2.) During CPUFREQ_INCOMPATIBLE only changes may be done in order to avoid
> - hardware failure.
> -
> -3.) And during CPUFREQ_NOTIFY all notifiers are informed of the new policy
> +2.) And during CPUFREQ_NOTIFY all notifiers are informed of the new policy
> - if two hardware drivers failed to agree on a new policy before this
> stage, the incompatible hardware shall be shut down, and the user
> informed of this.
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c b/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c
> index 47af702bb6a2..bb01dea39fdc 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c
> @@ -83,7 +83,7 @@ static int acpi_processor_ppc_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb,
> if (ignore_ppc)
> return 0;
>
> - if (event != CPUFREQ_INCOMPATIBLE)
> + if (event != CPUFREQ_ADJUST)
> return 0;
>
> mutex_lock(&performance_mutex);
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> index 76a26609d96b..293f47b814bf 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> @@ -2206,10 +2206,6 @@ static int cpufreq_set_policy(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> blocking_notifier_call_chain(&cpufreq_policy_notifier_list,
> CPUFREQ_ADJUST, new_policy);
>
> - /* adjust if necessary - hardware incompatibility*/
> - blocking_notifier_call_chain(&cpufreq_policy_notifier_list,
> - CPUFREQ_INCOMPATIBLE, new_policy);
> -
> /*
> * verify the cpu speed can be set within this limit, which might be
> * different to the first one
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/ppc_cbe_cpufreq_pmi.c b/drivers/cpufreq/ppc_cbe_cpufreq_pmi.c
> index d29e8da396a0..7969f7690498 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/ppc_cbe_cpufreq_pmi.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/ppc_cbe_cpufreq_pmi.c
> @@ -97,8 +97,8 @@ static int pmi_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb,
> struct cpufreq_frequency_table *cbe_freqs;
> u8 node;
>
> - /* Should this really be called for CPUFREQ_ADJUST, CPUFREQ_INCOMPATIBLE
> - * and CPUFREQ_NOTIFY policy events?)
> + /* Should this really be called for CPUFREQ_ADJUST and CPUFREQ_NOTIFY
> + * policy events?)
> */
> if (event = CPUFREQ_START)
> return 0;
> diff --git a/drivers/video/fbdev/pxafb.c b/drivers/video/fbdev/pxafb.c
> index 7245611ec963..94813af97f09 100644
> --- a/drivers/video/fbdev/pxafb.c
> +++ b/drivers/video/fbdev/pxafb.c
> @@ -1668,7 +1668,6 @@ pxafb_freq_policy(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val, void *data)
>
> switch (val) {
> case CPUFREQ_ADJUST:
> - case CPUFREQ_INCOMPATIBLE:
> pr_debug("min dma period: %d ps, "
> "new clock %d kHz\n", pxafb_display_dma_period(var),
> policy->max);
> diff --git a/drivers/video/fbdev/sa1100fb.c b/drivers/video/fbdev/sa1100fb.c
> index 89dd7e02197f..dcf774c15889 100644
> --- a/drivers/video/fbdev/sa1100fb.c
> +++ b/drivers/video/fbdev/sa1100fb.c
> @@ -1042,7 +1042,6 @@ sa1100fb_freq_policy(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val,
>
> switch (val) {
> case CPUFREQ_ADJUST:
> - case CPUFREQ_INCOMPATIBLE:
> dev_dbg(fbi->dev, "min dma period: %d ps, "
> "new clock %d kHz\n", sa1100fb_min_dma_period(fbi),
> policy->max);
> diff --git a/include/linux/cpufreq.h b/include/linux/cpufreq.h
> index bde1e567b3a9..bedcc90c0757 100644
> --- a/include/linux/cpufreq.h
> +++ b/include/linux/cpufreq.h
> @@ -369,11 +369,10 @@ static inline void cpufreq_resume(void) {}
>
> /* Policy Notifiers */
> #define CPUFREQ_ADJUST (0)
> -#define CPUFREQ_INCOMPATIBLE (1)
> -#define CPUFREQ_NOTIFY (2)
> -#define CPUFREQ_START (3)
> -#define CPUFREQ_CREATE_POLICY (4)
> -#define CPUFREQ_REMOVE_POLICY (5)
> +#define CPUFREQ_NOTIFY (1)
> +#define CPUFREQ_START (2)
> +#define CPUFREQ_CREATE_POLICY (3)
> +#define CPUFREQ_REMOVE_POLICY (4)
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_CPU_FREQ
> int cpufreq_register_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned int list);
>
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/7] cpufreq: remove redundant CPUFREQ_INCOMPATIBLE notifier event
2015-09-09 22:59 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
@ 2015-09-10 0:51 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-09-10 0:53 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Viresh Kumar @ 2015-09-10 0:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rafael J. Wysocki
Cc: linaro-kernel, linux-pm, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov,
Fabian Frederick, Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard,
Jonathan Corbet, Len Brown, open list:ACPI,
open list:DOCUMENTATION, open list:FRAMEBUFFER LAYER, open list,
Nicholas Mc Guire, Russell King, Tomi Valkeinen, Wolfram Sang
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/7] cpufreq: remove redundant CPUFREQ_INCOMPATIBLE notifier event
2015-09-10 0:51 ` Viresh Kumar
@ 2015-09-10 0:53 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
[not found] ` <57057201.9030109@codeaurora.org>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Rafael J. Wysocki @ 2015-09-10 0:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Viresh Kumar
Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki, Lists linaro-kernel, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov, Fabian Frederick,
Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard, Jonathan Corbet, Len Brown,
open list:ACPI, open list:DOCUMENTATION,
open list:FRAMEBUFFER LAYER, open list, Nicholas Mc Guire,
Russell King, Tomi Valkeinen, Wolfram Sang
Hi,
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 2:39 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> 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 ?
Right, never mind. For some reason that patch was left in the "New" state.
The code is OK.
Thanks,
Rafael
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/7] cpufreq: remove redundant CPUFREQ_INCOMPATIBLE notifier event
[not found] ` <CAJZ5v0iUdkYrEzKrGDEiDnexsxfY7o9xOHPoWELk88gau=gAhA@mail.gmail.com>
@ 2016-04-06 21:29 ` Saravana Kannan
2016-04-06 21:45 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Saravana Kannan @ 2016-04-06 21:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rafael J. Wysocki
Cc: Viresh Kumar, Rafael J. Wysocki, Lists linaro-kernel,
linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov,
Fabian Frederick, Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard,
Jonathan Corbet, Len Brown, open, list@codeaurora.org:ACPI
On 04/06/2016 02:21 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 10:30 PM, Saravana Kannan <skannan@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>> On 09/09/2015 05:53 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 2:39 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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 ?
>>>
>>>
>>> Right, never mind. For some reason that patch was left in the "New"
>>> state.
>>>
>>> The code is OK.
>>
>>
>>
>> I guess I didn't notice this change when it was sent out.
>>
>> The comment that was deleted in this patch clearly states why the
>> INCOMPATIBLE notifier is needed. Some client might want to boost the CPU min
>> freq for performance or other reasons, but thermal might want to limit it.
>> So, by having thermal register for INCOMPATIBLE notifiers to enforce the
>> limits, we provide a way to guarantee it gets the final say.
>>
>> The real fix should have been to change drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c to use
>> CPUFREQ_INCOMPATIBLE instead of CPUFREQ_ADJUST.
>>
>> Is there something I'm missing? If not, can we please revert this patch?
>
> Well, nobody was using that event.
>
True, but that's more of a bug in drivers/thermal/cpu-cooling.c and
drivers/acpi/processor_thermal.c. We should revert this patch and fix
those drivers. Does that seem acceptable to you?
-Saravana
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/7] cpufreq: remove redundant CPUFREQ_INCOMPATIBLE notifier event
2016-04-06 21:29 ` Saravana Kannan
@ 2016-04-06 21:45 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-04-06 21:49 ` Saravana Kannan
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Rafael J. Wysocki @ 2016-04-06 21:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Saravana Kannan
Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki, Viresh Kumar, Rafael J. Wysocki,
Lists linaro-kernel, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov, Fabian Frederick,
Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard, Jonathan Corbet, Len Brown,
open, list@codeaurora.org:ACPI, list@codeaurora.org:DOCUMENTATION,
list@codeaurora.org:FRAMEBUFFER LAYER, open list,
Nicholas Mc Guire, Russell King, Tomi Valkeinen, Wolfram Sang
On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 11:29 PM, Saravana Kannan <skannan@codeaurora.org> wrote:
> On 04/06/2016 02:21 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 10:30 PM, Saravana Kannan <skannan@codeaurora.org>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 09/09/2015 05:53 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>>
[cut]
>>
>> Well, nobody was using that event.
>>
>
> True, but that's more of a bug in drivers/thermal/cpu-cooling.c and
> drivers/acpi/processor_thermal.c. We should revert this patch and fix those
> drivers. Does that seem acceptable to you?
I'd rather see a patch series adding the event back along with some
users. One user at least.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/7] cpufreq: remove redundant CPUFREQ_INCOMPATIBLE notifier event
2016-04-06 21:45 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
@ 2016-04-06 21:49 ` Saravana Kannan
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Saravana Kannan @ 2016-04-06 21:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rafael J. Wysocki
Cc: Viresh Kumar, Rafael J. Wysocki, Lists linaro-kernel,
linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov,
Fabian Frederick, Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard,
Jonathan Corbet, Len Brown, open, list@codeaurora.org:ACPI,
list@codeaurora.org:DOCUMENTATION,
list@codeaurora.org:FRAMEBUFFER LAYER, open list,
Nicholas Mc Guire, Russell King, Tomi Valkeinen, Wolfram Sang
On 04/06/2016 02:45 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 11:29 PM, Saravana Kannan <skannan@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>> On 04/06/2016 02:21 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 10:30 PM, Saravana Kannan <skannan@codeaurora.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 09/09/2015 05:53 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>>>
>
> [cut]
>
>>>
>>> Well, nobody was using that event.
>>>
>>
>> True, but that's more of a bug in drivers/thermal/cpu-cooling.c and
>> drivers/acpi/processor_thermal.c. We should revert this patch and fix those
>> drivers. Does that seem acceptable to you?
>
> I'd rather see a patch series adding the event back along with some
> users. One user at least.
>
Ok, I'll make those two drivers use them and send it out. It's very
clearly a bug in those drivers.
-Saravana`
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-04-06 21:49 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <cover.1438571116.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
2015-08-03 3:18 ` [PATCH 1/7] cpufreq: remove redundant CPUFREQ_INCOMPATIBLE notifier event Viresh Kumar
2015-09-09 22:59 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-09-10 0:51 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-09-10 0:53 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
[not found] ` <57057201.9030109@codeaurora.org>
[not found] ` <CAJZ5v0iUdkYrEzKrGDEiDnexsxfY7o9xOHPoWELk88gau=gAhA@mail.gmail.com>
2016-04-06 21:29 ` Saravana Kannan
2016-04-06 21:45 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-04-06 21:49 ` Saravana Kannan
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).