On 08/06/18 09:25, Quentin Perret wrote: > Hi Dietmar, > > On Thursday 07 Jun 2018 at 17:55:32 (+0200), Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
[...] > > IMHO, part of the problem why this might be harder to understand is the fact > > that the patches show the use of the 2. init call > > 'em_rescale_cpu_capacity()' but not the 1. one 'em_register_freq_domain()'. > > I guess that Quentin wanted to keep the set as small as possible. > > Yes, this is confusing. I'm now starting to think that patch 10/10 should > probably not be part of this patch-set, especially if I don't provide > the patches registering the freq domains from the CPUFreq drivers. And > it's the only "Arm-specific" patch in this arch-independent patch-set. > > So I think I'll drop patch 10/10 for v4 ... That part should be > discussed separately, with the rest of the Arm-specific changes. Mmm, I would actually vote to at least have one example showing how and where the em_register_freq_domain() is going to be used. I had to look at the repo you referenced since I think it's quite fundamental piece to understand the design, IMHO.
