From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755078Ab3KVIaw (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Nov 2013 03:30:52 -0500 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:39407 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751621Ab3KVIau (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Nov 2013 03:30:50 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,750,1378882800"; d="scan'208";a="439734855" Message-ID: <528F138B.1090107@intel.com> Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 16:19:23 +0800 From: Lan Tianyu User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120714 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: viresh kumar CC: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , "cpufreq@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Nishanth Menon Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] Cpufreq: Make governor data on nonboot cpus across system suspend/resume References: <9847309.KdKOG5y1Zx@vostro.rjw.lan> <1384616184-6197-1-git-send-email-tianyu.lan@intel.com> <5288425A.6000501@linaro.org> <528F0C9E.8020409@linaro.org> In-Reply-To: <528F0C9E.8020409@linaro.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2013年11月22日 15:49, viresh kumar wrote: > On Sunday 17 November 2013 09:43 AM, viresh kumar wrote: >> On 16 November 2013 21:06, Lan Tianyu wrote: > >> But I don't really like the solution here. You are handling frozen for EXIT in >> cpufreq-core and for INIT in governor. That doesn't look like the right >> approach. There are out of tree governors too (I know we don't care about them >> :)), and those also need to adapt with some policy made at cpufreq-core level. >> >> I told you that I had another solution for this problem, pretty similar to >> yours. It looked like this: > > Hi Lan, > Hi Viresh: > There is some confusion going on here :) > I think you also are in the Cc list and replied the mail.:) https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/11/21/273 > There were few problems in the approach in your patch, which I have mentioned > above, and Rafael agreed to them.. I only saw the out-of-tree governor issue your mentioned but where they are? How upstream kernel cares them? > >> But after the PM notifiers patch I even don't want this to go.. I will make sure >> that that patch goes in, in one form or another :) > > And I was still trying to get a better solution in place of these changes. And > was going on the suggestions you gave about calling cpufreq callbacks from > dpm_{suspend|resume}_noirq() calls.. And I am on my way to get things fixed that > way. And so we don't actually need this patch anymore (I just saw that you have > sent another version of it, probably because Rafael asked? Don't know what > happened there :)).. > > So, I will try to get something working soon for you and Nishanth.. > -- Best regards Tianyu Lan