Viresh, On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.ku...@linaro.org> wrote: > On 16 May 2014 20:50, Doug Anderson <diand...@chromium.org> wrote: >> Right, so I think on exynos no functionality will be broken once >> Thomas's cpufreq-cpu0 change lands (udelay will only run long, never >> short). ...but from the purist standpoint we will be transitioning >> from 1.6 GHz => 800 MHz => 1.7 GHz without any notification about the >> 800 MHz. You could imagine someone registering for cpufreq >> notifications that would care about the 800MHz transition. >> >> ...so it seems like we could wait for Thomas's patches to land as-is >> (since they make things better) and then atop that see about adding >> support for intermediate frequencies to cpufreq-cpu0. > > Hmm, don't know. I think these patches aren't aimed at solving exynos's > problem but rather a general solution which must have already been there. > > If some platform can work without it then its fine, but otherwise they should > use it, even if udelay does work for them.. > > So, I would propose to go ahead with these patches in linux-next and lets > see who all would use it.
Ah. I wasn't suggesting to wait on your patches. I think it's fine to get your patches landed and to get Thomas's patches landed (without actually intermediate frequencies). ...and then both sets have landed then we can modify cpufreq-cpu0 / exynos to actually use the intermediate freq. -Doug -- 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/
