On 30 January 2013 21:53, Fabio Baltieri fabio.baltieri@linaro.org wrote:
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 08:32:38PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
I believe this routine should be rather present in cpufreq core code, as their might be other users of it. Its really not related to dbs or governors.
My ideas about the name of routine then:
- policy_is_shared()
- or something better you have :)
So you are suggesting to rethink this function to be related to policy rather than dbs... this may as well become an inline in cpufreq.h, as:
static inline bool policy_is_shared(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) { return cpumask_weight(policy->cpus) > 1; }
Perfect.
I'm not sure about the name through, I like mentioning sw coordination in it because that's the comment in the declaration:
cpumask_var_t cpus; /* CPUs requiring sw coordination */ cpumask_var_t related_cpus; /* CPUs with any coordination */And those two are already confusing as a starting point.
I will fix these comments with a patch of mine.
Anyway, this sounds fine to me. If you think this is useful I can send a patch, or feel free to include it in your patches if you plan to do further cleanup work on this code.
/me tries to also keep that ->cpu field in mind.
You can make it part of your patchsets v8.