Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934001Ab3CTANi (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Mar 2013 20:13:38 -0400 Received: from hydra.sisk.pl ([212.160.235.94]:52024 "EHLO hydra.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756768Ab3CTANf (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Mar 2013 20:13:35 -0400 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Viresh Kumar Cc: cpufreq@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, robin.randhawa@arm.com, Steve.Bannister@arm.com, Liviu.Dudau@arm.com, charles.garcia-tobin@arm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 4/4] cpufreq: Add Kconfig option to enable/disable have_multiple_policies Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 01:20:52 +0100 Message-ID: <1409962.M4gLo8y6eX@vostro.rjw.lan> User-Agent: KMail/4.9.5 (Linux/3.9.0-rc3+; KDE/4.9.5; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: References: <3174774.7AKCbYrzc6@vostro.rjw.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1404 Lines: 37 On Thursday, March 14, 2013 08:39:55 AM Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 14 March 2013 03:11, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Tuesday, March 12, 2013 08:55:12 AM Viresh Kumar wrote: > >> On 12 March 2013 07:38, Rafael J. Wysocki 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. But do we need the field to reside in the policy structure? It looks like it may just be a global bool variable (in which case the Kconfig option could be dropped IMO). Is there any particular reason to put that thing into struct cpufreq_policy? Rafael -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/