From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758290AbaCSAiM (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Mar 2014 20:38:12 -0400 Received: from v094114.home.net.pl ([79.96.170.134]:60486 "HELO v094114.home.net.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1757935AbaCSAiK (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Mar 2014 20:38:10 -0400 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Dirk Brandewie Cc: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, patrick.marlier@gmail.com, viresh.kumar@linaro.org, Dirk Brandewie Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] Add stop callback to the cpufreq_driver interface. Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 01:53:40 +0100 Message-ID: <5240506.FBRh89S9Lg@vostro.rjw.lan> User-Agent: KMail/4.11.5 (Linux/3.14.0-rc6+; KDE/4.11.5; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <53289D9A.8070805@gmail.com> References: <1394831037-15553-1-git-send-email-dirk.j.brandewie@intel.com> <532899B2.2060106@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <53289D9A.8070805@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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.brandewie@gmail.com wrote: > >> From: Dirk Brandewie > >> > > > > 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