From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752116AbbJMGQL (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Oct 2015 02:16:11 -0400 Received: from mail-pa0-f49.google.com ([209.85.220.49]:35007 "EHLO mail-pa0-f49.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751580AbbJMGQJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Oct 2015 02:16:09 -0400 Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 11:45:34 +0530 From: Viresh Kumar To: Saravana Kannan Cc: Rafael Wysocki , linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, open list Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] cpufreq: create cpu/cpufreq/policyX directories Message-ID: <20151013061534.GU5386@linux> References: <561C0A8B.5010509@codeaurora.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <561C0A8B.5010509@codeaurora.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. -- viresh