From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Lezcano Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/cpufreq: Reorganize the cpufreq files Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 12:13:42 +0200 Message-ID: References: <1539855372-11472-1-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> <8585bac0-c72c-edf4-2e93-c8740a3b1b6c@linaro.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Ingo Molnar , Thara Gopinath , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Peter Zijlstra , "Zhang, Rui" , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Viresh Kumar , Amit Kachhap , Javi Merino , Eduardo Valentin , Linux PM , Quentin Perret , ionela.voinescu@arm.com, Vincent Guittot , Ingo Molnar , Rafael Wysocki , Juri Lelli , Patrick Bellasi List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On 18/10/2018 12:06, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 11:54 AM Daniel Lezcano > wrote: >> >> On 18/10/2018 11:42, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>> On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 11:36 AM Daniel Lezcano >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> It was suggested to set the scene for the PM components in the >>>> scheduler code organization in the recent discussion about making the >>>> scheduler aware of the capacity capping from the thermal framework. >>>> >>>> Move the cpufreq files into its own directory as suggested at: >>>> >>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/10/18/353 >>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/10/18/408 >>> >>> Fair enough, but do we need to do that right now? >> >> I'm not planning to do more code reorg than this patch right now. Up to >> you to decide if you are willing to take them. > > The SPDX one certainly is applicable, but I'm not sure about the other one TBH. > > Why don't you add the SPDX IDs to those files as they are for now? Yes, sure. -- Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog