On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 09:42:23PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 13 September 2013 21:24, Russell King - ARM Linux linux@arm.linux.org.uk wrote:
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 06:32:32PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
Most of the drivers do following in their ->target_index() routines:
struct cpufreq_freqs freqs; freqs.old = old freq... freqs.new = new freq... cpufreq_notify_transition(policy, &freqs, CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE); /* Change rate here */ cpufreq_notify_transition(policy, &freqs, CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE);This is replicated over all cpufreq drivers today and there doesn't exists a good enough reason why this shouldn't be moved to cpufreq core instead.
Earlier patches have added support in cpufreq core to do cpufreq notification on frequency change, this one removes it from this driver.
Some related minor cleanups are also done along with it.
Cc: Russell King linux@arm.linux.org.uk Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar viresh.kumar@linaro.org
Shouldn't this patch set CPUFREQ_ASYNC_NOTIFICATION somewhere?
As far as I can see, sa11x0 completes frequency transition from within target() and so it does it synchronously.. And so it doesn't need to set CPUFREQ_ASYNC_NOTIFICATION...
Am I missing something?
The patch to which I'm replying removes the above calls. These calls are necessary to shutdown various bits of CPU-clock dependent hardware before changing the CPU clock, and restore them - reconfiguring them for the new clock rate after the transition has happened.
So, if you're removing these calls, what replaces them? I don't see anything which does without the above set.