From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Viresh Kumar Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] cpufreq: Get rid of ->governor_enabled and its lock Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2016 16:38:21 +0530 Message-ID: <20160203110821.GB3469@vireshk> References: <48d24fd180e1fdf1c06a6992748c6365be43e937.1454410226.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org> <20160202164937.GK3947@e106622-lin> <20160203060554.GS31828@vireshk> <20160203110512.GR3947@e106622-lin> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160203110512.GR3947@e106622-lin> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Juri Lelli Cc: Rafael Wysocki , linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, skannan@codeaurora.org, peterz@infradead.org, mturquette@baylibre.com, steve.muckle@linaro.org, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, morten.rasmussen@arm.com, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On 03-02-16, 11:05, Juri Lelli wrote: > It should be easy to rebase that set (or a part of it) on top of your > and/or Rafael changes. I realize that there are multiple sets of changes > under discussion; so, please tell me how do you, and Rafael, want to > proceed about this. Yeah, please wait for a bit for Rafael to apply both the series (if they pass the litmus test) to PM tree :) > But, I guess any other governor that will bypass cpufreq_governor.c, it > will also have to implement such checks. I was just proposing to state > this somewhere, so that we don't forget. We can surely add a comment for that. But I would like to review the state after these patches are applied, as we may be able to guarantee that from cpufreq-core instead. -- viresh