3 Jun
2016
3 Jun
'16
3:11 a.m.
On 03-06-16, 03:43, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, June 03, 2016 05:31:34 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
So, yeah, I get your overall concern. What about this:
- A single patchset to make sure the current policy->freq_table is always sorted in Ascending order of frequencies.
Be careful here. acpi-cpufreq sorts the table in the descending order and at least acpi_cpufreq_fast_switch() assumes that.
Yeah, it was already fixed in [V2 0/2] series. Thanks.
- And this sorting will be done per policy only when the policy is first created.
- Which would eventually mean merging this series with the [v2 0/2] one.
Will that work ?
Well, it may. :-)
I would like you to talk to Steve and agree on the approach, including which changes to make first, though. You are both from Linaro after all ...
Sure, we can get that done and I am not particular here on whose patches should get in first. The outcome should be same whatever order we follow :)
Thanks.
--
viresh