From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Viresh Kumar Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] cpufreq: acpi-cpufreq: add resolve_freq callback Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 17:08:15 +0530 Message-ID: <20160531113815.GG9463@vireshk-i7> References: <1464231181-30741-1-git-send-email-smuckle@linaro.org> <1464231181-30741-3-git-send-email-smuckle@linaro.org> <20160526064341.GV17585@vireshk-i7> <20160530162027.GF9864@graphite.smuckle.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160530162027.GF9864@graphite.smuckle.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Steve Muckle Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Vincent Guittot , Morten Rasmussen , Dietmar Eggemann , Juri Lelli , Patrick Bellasi , Michael Turquette List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On 30-05-16, 09:20, Steve Muckle wrote: > A couple concerns... One is that if we do the lookup in > cpufreq_driver_resolve_freq() for drivers which implement target_index() > then it means using cpufreq_frequency_table_target() there. This is a > heavier weight function that can't take advantage of driver-specific > knowledge that the freq table is sorted a particular way. I completely agree. > So for > acpi-cpufreq we'd now be having to walk the whole table for every > fast_switch. I have just tried to address that with following set: [PATCH 0/2] cpufreq: Use sorted frequency tables Lets see what Rafael has to say about that. > Another is that it'll be a a bit odd that the logic used to lookup the > driver frequency will be different in the cached and uncached > fast_switch cases. In the cached case it will have been determined by > code in cpufreq_driver_resolve_freq() whereas in the uncached case it > will be logic in the driver, in its fast_switch routine. We can make both of them refer the above code then. Lets see. -- viresh