Quoting Viresh Kumar (2014-10-08 01:19:40)
On 8 October 2014 13:41, Thomas Petazzoni thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2014 13:24:30 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 8 October 2014 13:18, Mike Turquette mturquette@linaro.org wrote:
This series is partially in response to a discussion around DT bindings for CPUfreq drivers [0], but it is also needed for on-going work to integrate CPUfreq with the scheduler. In particular a scheduler-driven
Well, when one has to merge a large number of changes, we often recommend to merge them piece by piece, which is what Mike is trying to do here. So we cannot at the same time ask developers to merge things in small pieces that are easy to review and to merge everything together because the users of a given API are not there yet.
From the wording of Mike it looks like:
- This is required by cpufreq drivers - today
- And this will also be useful for scheduler
Hi Viresh and Thomas,
Apologies if my wording was confusing. Without getting into a grammar war, I did say that these patches were "in response" to this thread (entirely accurate) and only necessary for the "on-going work" I'm doing with the scheduler. Sorry if any of that came across as me stating that these patches were necessary to solve Thomas' problem.
The first point doesn't stand true anymore. Lets wait for Mike's reply and see his opinion.
And then the patches are so small and there are no objections against them. I don't think getting them with the scheduler changes is that bad of an idea. In worst case, what if he has to redesign his idea? The new routines will stay without a caller then :)
Whether you merge the patches now or later is fine by me. I prefer to get my patches out early and often so I can avoid any surprises later on. If you have a fundamental objection to these patches then please let me know. Otherwise it would be wonderful to have an Ack.
Thanks! Mike
-- viresh