From: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
To: Julius Werner <jwerner@chromium.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, len.brown@intel.com,
khilman@ti.com, rjw@sisk.pl, deepthi@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, Trinabh Gupta <g.trinabh@gmail.com>,
snanda@chromium.org,
Lists Linaro-dev <linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] acpi/cpuidle: reinitialize power_usage values when adding/removing C-states
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 19:21:18 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5085808E.90702@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAODwPW-bnECEawh9sOwhydDodD+J4x2s4f5uHpeLusuBx-itxw@mail.gmail.com>
On 10/22/2012 07:13 PM, Julius Werner wrote:
>> Could we just say this is always true because state[i+1] consumes less
>> than state[i] ?
>>
>> And then just remove the 'set_power_state' function, and the field
>> 'driver->power_specified' ?
>>
>> That will cleanup the code and fix this problem, no ?
>
> I totally agree with your analysis. Even if a driver were to set
> proper usage values (and the power_specified bit), none of the
> existing governors would care about those actual numbers (and since
> the vast majority of drivers uses fake values anyway, this is not
> likely to change in the future). This seems to be a classic example of
> unnecessary over-engineering.
>
> I am mostly interested in getting that bug fixed right now, but
> removing unnecessary code is always a good thing. If you think it
> would have a good chance of getting merged, I would be happy to draft
> up a larger patch that refactors power_usage away completely.
I am in favor of removing the unnecessary code as it fixes a bug also
but I am not a maintainer, so I can't tell if it has a good chance to be
merged as a bug fix.
I think Rafael can tell us what approach he would prefer.
Thanks
-- Daniel
--
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-10-22 17:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-10-16 22:39 [PATCH] cpuidle: " Julius Werner
2012-10-17 10:31 ` Daniel Lezcano
2012-10-17 10:44 ` Daniel Lezcano
2012-10-17 18:43 ` Julius Werner
2012-10-18 8:21 ` Daniel Lezcano
2012-10-19 21:50 ` [PATCH] acpi/cpuidle: " Julius Werner
2012-10-20 21:50 ` Daniel Lezcano
2012-10-22 17:13 ` Julius Werner
2012-10-22 17:21 ` Daniel Lezcano [this message]
2012-11-12 20:26 ` [RFC] cpuidle - remove the power_specified field in the driver Daniel Lezcano
2012-11-12 21:09 ` Julius Werner
2012-11-12 22:08 ` Daniel Lezcano
2012-11-18 8:40 ` Francesco Lavra
2012-11-18 9:17 ` Daniel Lezcano
2012-12-10 19:09 ` Julius Werner
2012-12-10 22:41 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2012-12-11 9:46 ` Daniel Lezcano
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5085808E.90702@linaro.org \
--to=daniel.lezcano@linaro.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=deepthi@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=g.trinabh@gmail.com \
--cc=jwerner@chromium.org \
--cc=khilman@ti.com \
--cc=len.brown@intel.com \
--cc=linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rjw@sisk.pl \
--cc=snanda@chromium.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome