On 29 January 2015 at 01:05, Saravana Kannan skannan@codeaurora.org wrote:
@Viresh, thanks for taking up the patches and working on it. I wish I could have spent more time to get this in myself.
For the patches that are very similar to the ones I sent out, could you please leave the author as me? I spent quite some time figuring out the different corner cases and coding it up and don't want to completely lose authorship for the work I did. Would appreciate it if you could accommodate that.
Actually I haven't applied any of your patches as is, but wrote them myself. On some occasions they finally got similar to what you have done. Still I will try to identify the ones which match exactly and mark you the author.
I'll definitely review this. One thing that's not done in this patchset which I think should eventually be done (so, we should make sure we don't have any code that makes that harder to do in the future) is to allow setting the cpufreq parameters even when all the CPUs in the policy are offline. It's actually trivial for most of the parameters except a few governor specific tunables.
I disagree. The cpufreq-policy is inactive at that time and must not be updated at all. I have specifically marked the policy inactive in this case and wouldn't like to make the code unnecessarily complex without much need. If you have a good case why you want it, then we can discuss.