On 20 March 2013 05:50, Rafael J. Wysocki rjw@sisk.pl wrote:
On Thursday, March 14, 2013 08:39:55 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 14 March 2013 03:11, Rafael J. Wysocki rjw@sisk.pl wrote:
On Tuesday, March 12, 2013 08:55:12 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 12 March 2013 07:38, Rafael J. Wysocki rjw@sisk.pl wrote:
One more question before I apply it.
Is there any architecture/platform that will set CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_HAVE_MULTIPLE_POLICIES and keep have_multiple_policies unset at the same time?
No, they are redundant. That's why i have been forcing to drop this patch.
I see.
What about having the Kconfig option alone, however?
Even that is not enough. We build multiplatform kernels and so need a variable to be set by platform.
Which means the Kconfig option and the field are not redundant in fact.
Yes. Redundant was the wrong word. Actually Kconfig option is just not required as we can work efficiently without it.
But do we need the field to reside in the policy structure? It looks like it may just be a global bool variable
Yes. It is not per policy but per cpufreq driver. And this can be done by sharing a function from cpufreq core to driver. But when do you want me to call this function (which will set this global variable). If we do it from init, then we will end up calling it again and again. Then it has to be called before calling cpufreq_register_driver(), as init() gets called internally.
(in which case the Kconfig option could be dropped IMO).
We are aligned now :)
Is there any particular reason to put that thing into struct cpufreq_policy?
Just the problem i mentioned to you.