Re: [PATCH] opp: introduce library for device-specific OPPs

Mark Brown
2010-09-17T15:59:37Z

On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 10:53:06AM -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> Mark Brown had written, on 09/17/2010 10:36 AM, the following:

> >It might be clearer to use some term other than enabled in the code -
> >when reading I wasn't immediately sure if enabled meant that it was
> >available to be selected or if it was the active operating point. How
> >about 'allowed' (though I'm not 100% happy with that)?

> ;).. The opp is enabled or disabled if it is populated, it is
> implicit as being available but not enabled- how about active? this
> would change the opp_enable/disable functions to opp_activate,
> opp_deactivate..

> Recommendations folks?

The enable/disable thing wasn't so noticable in the API itself, it was
in the data structures that I found it confusing - the core has a
different idea about what's going on with the system as a whole compared
to the decision that an individual device is taking.

> >When reading the description I'd expected to see some facility to
> >trigger selection of an active operating point in the library (possibly
> >as a separate call since you might have a bunch of operating points
> >being updated in quick succession) but it looks like that needs to be
> >supplied externally at the minute?

> The intent is we use the opp_search* functions to pick up the opp
> and enable/activate it and disable/deactivate it.

Sure, I get that bit. What I meant was that I was expecting something
that would say that changes had been made to the enabled/disabled sets
and that it'd be a good idea to rescan, especially for cases where the
devices change their requirements but the OPPs need to be done over a
larger block.