amit daniel kachhap wrote:
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 7:55 AM, Viresh Kumar viresh.kumar@linaro.org 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, but this drivers needs to do this notification itself
and so
it sets its CPUFREQ_NO_NOTIFICATION flag.
Cc: Kukjin Kim kgene.kim@samsung.com
Acked-by: Kukjin Kim kgene.kim@samsung.com
Thanks, Kukjin
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar viresh.kumar@linaro.org
The code change looks fine, Acked-By: Amit Daniel Kachhap amit.daniel@samsung.com
Thanks Amit Daniel
drivers/cpufreq/exynos5440-cpufreq.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/exynos5440-cpufreq.c
b/drivers/cpufreq/exynos5440-cpufreq.c
index 91a64d6..8fb6183 100644 --- a/drivers/cpufreq/exynos5440-cpufreq.c +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/exynos5440-cpufreq.c @@ -323,7 +323,7 @@ static int exynos_cpufreq_cpu_init(struct
cpufreq_policy *policy)
}
static struct cpufreq_driver exynos_driver = {
.flags = CPUFREQ_STICKY,
.flags = CPUFREQ_STICKY | CPUFREQ_NO_NOTIFICATION, .verify = cpufreq_generic_frequency_table_verify, .target_index = exynos_target, .get = exynos_getspeed,-- 1.7.12.rc2.18.g61b472e