From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Viresh Kumar Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] cpufreq: remove redundant CPUFREQ_INCOMPATIBLE notifier event Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 06:09:18 +0530 Message-ID: <20150910003918.GL5266@linux> References: <406f55ac8030043f0349b084878c9b8d04f7ad86.1438571116.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org> <4897937.47p7WB7CoU@vostro.rjw.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail-pa0-f43.google.com ([209.85.220.43]:36393 "EHLO mail-pa0-f43.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754042AbbIJAjX (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Sep 2015 20:39:23 -0400 Received: by padhk3 with SMTP id hk3so24973445pad.3 for ; Wed, 09 Sep 2015 17:39:22 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4897937.47p7WB7CoU@vostro.rjw.lan> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, 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 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