On Thursday, October 25, 2012 08:59:11 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 25 October 2012 02:42, Rafael J. Wysocki rjw@sisk.pl wrote:
On Wednesday 24 of October 2012 21:43:46 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Wednesday 24 of October 2012 11:37:13 Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 22 October 2012 14:16, Viresh Kumar viresh.kumar@linaro.org wrote:
On 20 October 2012 01:42, Viresh Kumar viresh.kumar@linaro.org wrote:
Initially ondemand governor was written and then using its code conservative governor is written. It used a lot of code from ondemand governor, but copy of code was created instead of using the same routines from both governors. Which increased code redundancy, which is difficult to manage.
This patch is an attempt to move common part of both the governors to cpufreq_governor.c file to come over above mentioned issues.
This shouldn't change anything from functionality point of view.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar viresh.kumar@linaro.org
For everybody else, this patch is already pushed by Rafael in his linux-next branch.
Well, not yet, although I'm going to do that.
Or I would if it still applied. Unfortunately, though, it doesn't apply any more to my linux-next branch due to some previous changes in it.
Care to rebase?
Ahh.. I got confused by the following patch:
commit 83a73f712f2275033b2dc7f5c664988a1823ebc7 Author: viresh kumar viresh.kumar@linaro.org Date: Tue Oct 23 01:28:05 2012 +0200
cpufreq: Move common part from governors to separate file, v2 Multiple cpufreq governers have defined similar get_cpu_idle_time_***() routines. These routines must be moved to some common place, so that all governors can use them. So moving them to cpufreq_governor.c, which seems to be a better place for keeping these routines. Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>Actually, i should i have replied on this patch (and i forgot). I wanted you to skip this patch, as the latest patch already had this change.
But now i see commits from others on cpufreq_governor.c file.
Hmm... So you can keep your tree as it is and apply the attached patch. It is the same patch getting discussed in this thread. Just rebased over your latest next.
I have applied this patch only because of the fixes on top of it. It broke kernel compliation due to some missing EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPLs in cpufreq_governor.c, so I woulnd't have applied it otherwise.
Thanks, Rafael