On Thursday, March 30, 2017 08:50:11 AM Vikram Mulukutla wrote: > > > OK > > > > So there are two pieces here. > > > > One is that if we want *all* drivers to work with schedutil, we need to > > keep > > the kthread for the ones that will never be reworked (because nobody > > cares > > etc). But then perhaps the kthread implementation may be left alone > > (because > > nobody cares etc). > > > > The second one is that there are drivers operating in-context that work > > with > > schedutil already, so I don't see major obstacles to making more > > drivers work > > that way. That would be only a matter of reworking the drivers in > > question. > > > > Thanks, > > Rafael > > There are some MSM platforms that do need a kthread and would love to > use > schedutil. This is all mainly due to the point that Vincent raised; > having > to actually wait for voltage transitions before clock switches. I can't > speak about the future, but that's the situation right now. Leaving the > kthread alone for now would be appreciated!
I was not arguing for removing the kthread (quite opposite rather). My point was that *if* it is viable to rework drivers to operate in-context, that would be the way to go IMO instead of messing up with the kthread thing. Thanks, Rafael
