On Tuesday, March 18, 2014 12:25:14 PM Dirk Brandewie wrote: > On 03/18/2014 12:08 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote: > > On 03/18/2014 10:52 PM, dirk.brande...@gmail.com wrote: > >> From: Dirk Brandewie <dirk.j.brande...@intel.com> > >> > > > > I don't mean to nitpick, but generally its easier to deal with > > patchsets if you post the subsequent versions in fresh email threads. > > Otherwise it can get a bit muddled along with too many other email > > discussions in the same thread :-( > > > >> Changes: > >> v2->v3 > >> Changed the calling of the ->stop() callback to be conditional on the > >> core being the last core controlled by a given policy. > >> > > > > Wait, why? I'm sorry if I am not catching up with the discussions on > > this issue quickly enough, but I don't see why we should make it > > conditional on _that_. I thought we agreed that we should make it > > conditional in the sense that ->stop() should be invoked only for > > ->setpolicy drivers, right? > > This was done at Viresh's suggestion since thought there might be value > for ->target drivers. > > Any of the options work for me > called only for set_policy scaling drivers
And that's what we should do *today* in my opinion, unless we want to add it to any ->target() drivers *right* now. Do we want that? Rafael -- 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/
