From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] sched: cpufreq: Keep track of cpufreq utilization
 update flags
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 08:52:17 +0530
Message-ID: <20171219032217.GN19815@vireshk-i7>
References: <cover.1513158452.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
 <CAJZ5v0jLQ7v5u+OUpK0gSAHvR90K=agvUSuFNzJXMnk+YkKyzQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKohpomHfV=2CQj0_D=PsoMvbCu5v_ensJqaZmxUURzr27+yhA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20456740.6R3DDKEUDv@aspire.rjw.lan>
 <20171218045945.GG19815@vireshk-i7>
 <CAJZ5v0h+bvbe6DbMn+9DXbbctKG4POTsvEf_eL8R0nLajKXBTA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20171218115943.GL19815@vireshk-i7>
 <20171218121453.GH19821@e110439-lin>
 <20171219031237.GM19815@vireshk-i7>
 <CAJWu+ooGRedM_w6xBwhb+ype0SMmM8w-uEjjpzaTWmp-GueZDg@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAJWu+ooGRedM_w6xBwhb+ype0SMmM8w-uEjjpzaTWmp-GueZDg@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>
Cc: Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>, Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>, Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>, Todd Kjos <tkjos@android.com>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org

On 18-12-17, 19:18, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> Hi Viresh,
> 
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> > On 18-12-17, 12:14, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> >> For example, swithing from:
> >>
> >>  - void (*func)(struct update_util_data *data, u64 time,
> >>  -              unsigned int flags))
> >>  + void (*func)(struct update_util_data *data, u64 time,
> >>  +              unsigned int flags, bool set))
> >>
> >> Where the additional boolean is actually used to define which
> >> operation we wanna perform on the flags?
> >
> > The code will eventually have the same complexity or ugliness in both
> > the cases. I would like to start with another flag for now and see if
> > people prefer another parameter.
> 
> Though I think that will solve Rafael's concern of polluting the flags
> for something schedutil specific. I also feel adding extra callback
> parameter is cleaner than 2 new clear flags.

Okay, I will then wait for Rafael to come online and comment on what
he would prefer before posting.

-- 
viresh