From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Viresh Kumar Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] cpufreq: Use sorted frequency tables Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 16:12:43 +0530 Message-ID: <20160601104243.GL3725@vireshk-i7> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail-pf0-f172.google.com ([209.85.192.172]:35682 "EHLO mail-pf0-f172.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750716AbcFAKmr (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Jun 2016 06:42:47 -0400 Received: by mail-pf0-f172.google.com with SMTP id g64so13052612pfb.2 for ; Wed, 01 Jun 2016 03:42:47 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Rafael Wysocki , Lists linaro-kernel , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , Steve Muckle On 01-06-16, 00:50, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > I'm not particularly liking this due to the possible confusion that > may result from it. I have gotten rid of most of it now in V2. > Perhaps we can require drivers implementing ->fast_switch to sort > their frequency tables to start with? I wasn't *only* concerned about the fast-switch case, but the case of normal governors that we use today. After all that's what everybody is using right now. And I feel (Maybe you as well), that we are better off using a single optimized path for all cases. Otherwise things start getting too messy too soon. > Or maybe make the core check > whether or not the table is sorted Platforms are already broken for this, and so wouldn't be possible to check for existing governors. > and in what order and handle it > accordingly? We should really be handling a single order to avoid complications in it :) > Let's just think about the design here for a while, OK? Sure. Lets see how bad is V2. -- viresh