From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from az33egw02.freescale.net (az33egw02.freescale.net [192.88.158.103]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFEBA67A42 for ; Fri, 26 May 2006 02:47:52 +1000 (EST) Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: via-pmu runs device_power_down in atomic context] From: Jon Loeliger To: Andrew Morton In-Reply-To: <20060525074412.19a03c22.akpm@osdl.org> References: <20060524215917.230af218.akpm@osdl.org> <20060525074412.19a03c22.akpm@osdl.org> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1148575497.24946.40.camel@cashmere.sps.mot.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 11:44:57 -0500 Cc: cpufreq@lists.linux.org.uk, johannes@sipsolutions.net, Alan Stern , "linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org" List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, 2006-05-25 at 09:44, Andrew Morton wrote: > > In essence, the problem seemed to be that the cpufreq notifier chain is > > sometimes expected to be blocking and sometimes expected to be atomic, > > based on the "val" code passed to notifier_call_chain. The cleanest > > solution would be to split the single notifier chain into two chains, > > one always blocking and the other always atomic. > > > > Somebody who knows more about cpufreq than I do will have to make that > > change. > > > > I wouldn't describe the cpufreq project as a teeming hive of frenetic > activity, and we need something pronto. > > We could go back to a raw_notifier and be as buggy as we used to be. It _is_ actively being pursued today for a cleaned up implementation. If there are issues or requirements here, we should really pass them on to the linux-pm list. Thanks, jdl