On 03/02/16 12:24, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 02-02-16, 17:32, Saravana Kannan wrote: > > But if we are expecting sched dvfs to come in, why make it worse for it. It > > would be completely pointless to try and shoehorn sched dvfs to use > > cpufreq_governor.c > > We can move the common part to cpufreq core and not make sched-dvfs > reuse cpufreq_governor.c >
I also think that sched-dvfs should not use cpufreq_governor.c. It is useful boilerplate code for ondemand and conservative, as they share lot of data structures and how they work, but it doesn't necessarily suit everybody's needs, IMHO. OTOH, fixing the current issue in the best way we can come up with has still value of course :). Best, - Juri
