On 03-06-16, 03:43, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Friday, June 03, 2016 05:31:34 AM Viresh Kumar wrote: > > 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.
Yeah, it was already fixed in [V2 0/2] series. Thanks. > > - 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 ... Sure, we can get that done and I am not particular here on whose patches should get in first. The outcome should be same whatever order we follow :) Thanks. -- viresh
