On 26-07-17, 14:00, Saravana Kannan wrote: > No, the alternative is to pass it on to the CPU freq driver and let it > decide what it wants to do. That's the whole point if having a CPU freq > driver -- so that the generic code doesn't need to care about HW specific > details. Which is the point I was making in an earlier email to Viresh's > patch -- we shouldn't be doing any CPU check for the call backs at the > scheduler or ever governor level. > > That would simplify this whole thing by deleting a bunch of code. And having > much simpler checks in those drivers that actually have to deal with their > HW specific details.
So what you are saying is that we go and update (almost) every cpufreq driver we have today and make their ->target() callbacks return early if they don't support switching frequency remotely ? Is that really simplifying anything? The core already has most of the data required and I believe that we need to handle it in the governor's code as is handled in this series. To solve the problem that you have been reporting (update from any CPU), we need something like this which I earlier suggested and I will come back to it after this series is gone. Don't want to complicate things here unnecessarily. https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=148906012827786&w=2 -- viresh
