From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Saravana Kannan Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/18] cpufreq: Manage fallback policies in a list Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 14:28:55 -0800 Message-ID: <54D29D27.7080207@codeaurora.org> References: <43d728016b775d1b0fc02c981eb0520ac08297f5.1422346933.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org> <54D14B7B.8040307@codeaurora.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org ([198.145.11.231]:56175 "EHLO smtp.codeaurora.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753936AbbBDW26 (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Feb 2015 17:28:58 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: Viresh Kumar Cc: Rafael Wysocki , Linaro Kernel Mailman List , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , Stephen Boyd , Prarit Bhargava On 02/03/2015 10:20 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 4 February 2015 at 03:58, Saravana Kannan wrote: >> Can you explain why we need a fallback list in the first place? Now that we >> are not destroying and creating policy objects, I don't see any point in the >> fallback list. > > Because we wanted to mark the policy inactive. But as I have introduced another > field for that now, probably it can be fixed. Will check again on what > can be done. Thanks. That's why I was asking. Now that you have another flag. Also, you might not even need a flag. You can just check if policy->cpus is empty (btw, I think we should let that go to empty) > > Can you review the other patches so that they are reviewed once before sending > V2 here ? Definitely. I want this feature to go in. -Saravana -- The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation