On 16 May 2014 00:47, Stephen Warren swarren@wwwdotorg.org wrote:
This seems rather complex. Can't either the driver or the cpufreq core be responsible for all of the notifications? Otherwise, the logic gets rather complex, and spread between the core and the driver.
I do agree about that and that's why added that 'ugly' statement.
Perhaps the core should make separate calls into the driver to switch to the temporary frequency and the final frequency, so it can manage all the notifications. Probably best to use a separate function pointer for the temporary change so the driver can easily know what it's doing.
Hmm, that sounds like a much better approach. Let me try to code it.