lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Feb]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH V2 3/4] cpufreq: Add Kconfig option to enable/disable have_multiple_policies
Date
On Friday, February 22, 2013 07:44:23 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 22 February 2013 05:23, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:
> > On Monday, February 11, 2013 01:20:02 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
>
> >> +config CPU_FREQ_HAVE_MULTIPLE_POLICIES
> >> + bool
> >> +
> >
> > So I suppose some architectures will select this, right?
>
> Yes. And they have to enable have_multiple_policies too from their
> drivers init code.
>
> > What architecture they are?
>
> Atleast all big.LITTLE SoCs. Or any other SoC that has multiple policy
> structs alive at any time.
>
>
> > I'm not really sure I like this. ->
>
> >> static inline struct kobject *
> >> get_governor_parent_kobj(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> >> {
> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_HAVE_MULTIPLE_POLICIES
> >> if (policy->have_multiple_policies)
> >> return &policy->kobj;
> >> else
> >> +#endif
> >> return cpufreq_global_kobject;
> >
> > -> I wonder why don't you arrange things so that policy->kobj is always
> > returned, but it points to cpufreq_global_kobject in case there's only one
> > (i.e. make policy->kobj a pointer)?
>
> policy->kobj is a struct instance rather than a pointer and it is widely used
> within cpufreq.c.

Yeah, policy attributes. Never mind.

> If you don't like this one then we can add another entry
> into struct policy like: gov_sysfs_parent.

I don't know. This is going to look kind of ugly this way or another I think.

Maybe I'll figure out something ...

Thanks,
Rafael


--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-02-22 04:01    [W:0.050 / U:0.616 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site