On 13 August 2013 04:17, Rafael J. Wysocki <r...@sisk.pl> wrote: > On Monday, August 12, 2013 11:18:36 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: >> Currently prototype of cpufreq_drivers target routines is: >> >> int target(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, unsigned int target_freq, >> unsigned int relation); >> >> And most of the drivers call cpufreq_frequency_table_target() to get a valid >> index of their frequency table which is closest to the target_freq. And they >> don't use target_freq and relation after it. >> >> So, it makes sense to just do this work in cpufreq core before calling >> cpufreq_frequency_table_target() and simply pass index instead. But this can >> be >> done only with drivers which expose their frequency table with cpufreq core. >> For >> others we need to stick with the old prototype of target() until those >> drivers >> are converted to expose frequency tables. >> >> So, in order not to break those special drivers first patch renames >> ->target() to >> ->target_old() and the following patches will define the new prototype and >> convert existing drivers one by one. > > Super-ugly.
Thanks. I expected something similar.. :) > Please just keep the old .target() as is, add a new callback and switch the > suitable drivers to using it. You may call the new one .target_index() or > something along these lines. I thought of implementing with this name but then thought maybe earlier name is good enough and can be kept and so went for the *Super-ugly* solution.. Will be fixed :) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
