>>> On 16.06.15 at 09:09, <wei.w.w...@intel.com> wrote:
> On 15/06/2015 20:37, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 15.06.15 at 14:28, <wei.w.w...@intel.com> wrote:
>> > On 15/06/2015 17:15, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >> >>> On 15.06.15 at 02:30, <wei.w.w...@intel.com> wrote:
>> >> > We actually want it be intel_pstate specific. If maintainers agree,
>> >> > I think renaming it to intel_pstate_policy is a good option.
>> >>
>> >> No, this name is just ugly. If you need driver specific data, have a
>> >> void
>> > pointer
>> >> in the generic structure; the driver can then allocate memory to be
>> >> pointed to by that, and can store there whatever private data it needs.
>> >
>> > OK. I plan to make the following changes:
>> >
>> > 1) in cpufreq_policy, add a field - void *private_data;
>> >
>> >
>> > 2) add a new structure:
>> > struct intel_pstate_policy {
>> > unsigned int policy;
>> > }
>>
>> struct intel_pstate_private or struct intel_pstate_data please.
>>
>
> "struct perf_limits" is currently used only by intel_pstate, should we also
> move it to the intel_pstate_private struct, instead of the cpufreq_policy?
Yes of course - anything private to the driver should go there.
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
