From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/10] cpufreq: provide data for frequency-invariant load-tracking support Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 11:30:51 +0200 Message-ID: <20170710093051.axnd7drdnsxgiu6f@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <20170706094948.8779-1-dietmar.eggemann@arm.com> <22f004af-0158-8265-2da5-34743f294bfb@arm.com> <12829054.TWIodSo4bb@aspire.rjw.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <12829054.TWIodSo4bb@aspire.rjw.lan> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Dietmar Eggemann , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Viresh Kumar , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux PM , Russell King - ARM Linux , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Russell King , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Juri Lelli , Vincent Guittot , Morten Rasmussen List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Jul 08, 2017 at 02:09:37PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > Anyway, if everyone agrees that doing it in the core is the way to go (Peter?), > why don't you introduce a __weak function for setting policy->cur and > override it from your arch so as to call arch_set_freq_scale() from there? > So I'm terminally backlogged and my recent break didn't help any with that. I'm at a total loss as to what is proposed here and why we need it. I tried reading both the Changelog and patch but came up empty.