Messages in this thread | | | From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/5] cpufreq: handle SW coordinated CPUs | Date | Wed, 28 Nov 2012 13:49:52 +0100 |
| |
On Wednesday, November 28, 2012 11:51:20 AM Fabio Baltieri wrote: > Hello Rafael,
Hi,
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:05:52PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > static inline void dbs_timer_init(struct dbs_data *dbs_data, > > > - struct cpu_dbs_common_info *cdbs, unsigned int sampling_rate) > > > + struct cpu_dbs_common_info *cdbs, > > > + unsigned int sampling_rate, > > > + int cpu) > > > { > > > int delay = delay_for_sampling_rate(sampling_rate); > > > + struct cpu_dbs_common_info *cdbs_local = dbs_data->get_cpu_cdbs(cpu); > > > + struct od_cpu_dbs_info_s *od_dbs_info; > > > + > > > + cancel_delayed_work_sync(&cdbs_local->work); > > > + > > > + if (dbs_data->governor == GOV_ONDEMAND) { > > > + od_dbs_info = dbs_data->get_cpu_dbs_info_s(cpu); > > > + od_dbs_info->sample_type = OD_NORMAL_SAMPLE; > > > + } > > > > The patch looks good in general except for the special case above. > > > > Why exactly is it necessary? > > Now that you point it out... it's not! It was part of ondemand init and > moved in cpufreq_governor_dbs, I forgot to take it out the way. > > Also, I think that cancel_delayed_work_sync can be removed too. > > Should I send an updated version as soon as I get an ack for the other > patches in the series or do you want me to wait until 3.8-rc1?
Well, if it's not very urgent, I'd prefer it to wait a bit longer, get some more testing and so on.
Thanks, Rafael
-- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
| |