On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 09:42:23PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 13 September 2013 21:24, Russell King - ARM Linux > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 06:32:32PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > >> Most of the drivers do following in their ->target_index() routines: > >> > >> struct cpufreq_freqs freqs; > >> freqs.old = old freq... > >> freqs.new = new freq... > >> > >> cpufreq_notify_transition(policy, &freqs, CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE); > >> > >> /* Change rate here */ > >> > >> cpufreq_notify_transition(policy, &freqs, CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE); > >> > >> This is replicated over all cpufreq drivers today and there doesn't exists > >> a > >> good enough reason why this shouldn't be moved to cpufreq core instead. > >> > >> Earlier patches have added support in cpufreq core to do cpufreq > >> notification on > >> frequency change, this one removes it from this driver. > >> > >> Some related minor cleanups are also done along with it. > >> > >> Cc: Russell King <[email protected]> > >> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <[email protected]> > > > > Shouldn't this patch set CPUFREQ_ASYNC_NOTIFICATION somewhere? > > As far as I can see, sa11x0 completes frequency transition from within > target() and so it does it synchronously.. And so it doesn't need to set > CPUFREQ_ASYNC_NOTIFICATION... > > Am I missing something?
The patch to which I'm replying removes the above calls. These calls are necessary to shutdown various bits of CPU-clock dependent hardware before changing the CPU clock, and restore them - reconfiguring them for the new clock rate after the transition has happened. So, if you're removing these calls, what replaces them? I don't see anything which does without the above set. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
