Re: [PATCH 0/2] allow cpufreq drivers to export flags

[Mike Turquette <mturquette@linaro.org>]

Quoting Viresh Kumar (2014-10-08 01:19:40)
> On 8 October 2014 13:41, Thomas Petazzoni
> <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 8 Oct 2014 13:24:30 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> >> On 8 October 2014 13:18, Mike Turquette <mturquette@linaro.org> wrote:
> 
> >> > This series is partially in response to a discussion around DT bindings
> >> > for CPUfreq drivers [0], but it is also needed for on-going work to
> >> > integrate CPUfreq with the scheduler. In particular a scheduler-driven
> 
> > Well, when one has to merge a large number of changes, we often
> > recommend to merge them piece by piece, which is what Mike is trying to
> > do here. So we cannot at the same time ask developers to merge things
> > in small pieces that are easy to review and to merge everything
> > together because the users of a given API are not there yet.
> 
> From the wording of Mike it looks like:
> - This is required by cpufreq drivers - today
> - And this will also be useful for scheduler

Hi Viresh and Thomas,

Apologies if my wording was confusing. Without getting into a grammar
war, I did say that these patches were "in response" to this thread
(entirely accurate) and only necessary for the "on-going work" I'm doing
with the scheduler. Sorry if any of that came across as me stating that
these patches were necessary to solve Thomas' problem.

> 
> The first point doesn't stand true anymore. Lets wait for Mike's reply and
> see his opinion.
> 
> And then the patches are so small and there are no objections against
> them. I don't think getting them with the scheduler changes is that bad
> of an idea. In worst case, what if he has to redesign his idea? The new
> routines will stay without a caller then :)

Whether you merge the patches now or later is fine by me. I prefer to
get my patches out early and often so I can avoid any surprises later
on. If you have a fundamental objection to these patches then please let
me know. Otherwise it would be wonderful to have an Ack.

Thanks!
Mike

> 
> --
> viresh