Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 11 Aug 2021 11:04:06 +0530 | From | Viresh Kumar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/8] cpufreq: Auto-register with energy model |
| |
On 11-08-21, 10:48, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 10-08-21, 13:35, Quentin Perret wrote: > > This series adds more code than it removes, > > Sadly yes :( > > > and the unregistration is > > not a fix as we don't ever remove the EM tables by design, so not sure > > either of these points are valid arguments. > > I think that design needs to be looked over again, it looks broken to > me everytime I land onto this code. I wonder why we don't unregister > stuff.
Coming back to this series. We have two options, based on what I proposed here:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pm/20210811050327.3yxrk4kqxjjwaztx@vireshk-i7/
1. Let cpufreq core register with EM on behalf of cpufreq drivers.
2. Update drivers to use ->ready() callback to do this stuff.
I am fine with both :)
-- viresh
| |