From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Saravana Kannan Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] cpufreq: create cpu/cpufreq/policyX directories Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 12:25:17 -0700 Message-ID: <561D5A9D.1070003@codeaurora.org> References: <561C0A8B.5010509@codeaurora.org> <20151013061534.GU5386@linux> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org ([198.145.29.96]:38709 "EHLO smtp.codeaurora.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752446AbbJMTZT (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Oct 2015 15:25:19 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20151013061534.GU5386@linux> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: Viresh Kumar Cc: Rafael Wysocki , linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, open list On 10/12/2015 11:15 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 12-10-15, 12:31, Saravana Kannan wrote: >> Can we use the first CPU in the related CPUs mask? Instead of the >> first CPU that the policy got created on? The policyX numbering >> would be a bit more consistent that way. > > Okay, checked this again. The problem is that ->init() isn't called > yet and we are very early in the initialization sequence. So, we can't > really know related_cpus yet. So I will keep it unchanged for now. > Can we move the sysfs add to the end so that by the time we add sysfs, we'll have all the details? -Saravana -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project