On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 6:36 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.ku...@linaro.org> wrote: > On 04-02-16, 00:22, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com> >> >> If the ondemand and conservative governors cannot use per-policy >> tunables (CPUFREQ_HAVE_GOVERNOR_PER_POLICY is not set in the cpufreq >> driver), all policy objects point to the same single dbs_data object. >> Additionally, that object is pointed to by a global pointer hidden in >> the governor's data structures. >> >> There is no reason for that pointer to be buried in those >> data structures, though, so make it explicitly global. >> >> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com> > >> Index: linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c >> =================================================================== >> --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c >> +++ linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c >> @@ -22,6 +22,9 @@ >> >> #include "cpufreq_governor.h" >> >> +struct dbs_data *global_dbs_data; >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(global_dbs_data); > > Oh man, please save me from Rafael's Rant :) > > I think, this is simply wrong. > > Believe me its very difficult for me to say this to you :). You are > way better than me, and I am sure that I haven't understood cupfreq > after so many years :) > > Consider a two policy system, who is stopping us from setting ondemand > for one of them and conservative for the other one ? And so, we will > have two gdbs_data ..
I don't really regard that as an entirely sane thing to do, but you have a point here. > Sorry for the noise, if I am being utterly stupid :( No, that's something I have overlooked, sorry about that. Well, I'll need to go back to this patch or maybe drop it even. Thanks, Rafael
