On Friday, June 03, 2016 05:31:34 AM Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 02-06-16, 22:35, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > Quoting from this very cover letter "This change allows us to remove > > the (duplicate) sorted-freq-table, which > > was added by following series:", so why to add it in the first place? > > Okay, that's fine. > > > Besides, there already is a number of tables (per policy which in some > > important cases pretty much means per CPU) in cpufreq that contain > > more-or-less the same information. For example, if acpi-cpufreq is in > > use, the ACPI layer has a table coming from _PSS, the driver creates > > freq_table to pass to the core and there is an additional one for the > > stats. And your series adds one more just so it is ordered. Come on. > > Of course. > > > If you want to clean that up, fine, but please don't do that in a > > hurry. Let's talk about it a bit more without sending any more > > patches in that area for the time being. > > Okay, I will send all the fixes that you can apply cleanly now in a > separate set.
Thanks! > So, yeah, I get your overall concern. What about this: > - A single patchset to make sure the current policy->freq_table is > always sorted in Ascending order of frequencies. Be careful here. acpi-cpufreq sorts the table in the descending order and at least acpi_cpufreq_fast_switch() assumes that. > - And this sorting will be done per policy only when the policy is > first created. > - Which would eventually mean merging this series with the [v2 0/2] > one. > > Will that work ? Well, it may. :-) I would like you to talk to Steve and agree on the approach, including which changes to make first, though. You are both from Linaro after all ... Thanks, Rafael
