Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753637Ab3IMQMZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Sep 2013 12:12:25 -0400 Received: from mail-oa0-f45.google.com ([209.85.219.45]:63783 "EHLO mail-oa0-f45.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751941Ab3IMQMX (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Sep 2013 12:12:23 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20130913155424.GB12758@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <6e2ca86ce948c0bc35f7709baf22672771fcf1e8.1379063063.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org> <20130913155424.GB12758@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 21:42:23 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 206/228] cpufreq: sa11x0: remove calls to cpufreq_notify_transition() From: Viresh Kumar To: Russell King - ARM Linux Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Lists linaro-kernel , Patch Tracking , "cpufreq@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1495 Lines: 38 On 13 September 2013 21:24, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 06:32:32PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: >> Most of the drivers do following in their ->target_index() routines: >> >> struct cpufreq_freqs freqs; >> freqs.old = old freq... >> freqs.new = new freq... >> >> cpufreq_notify_transition(policy, &freqs, CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE); >> >> /* Change rate here */ >> >> cpufreq_notify_transition(policy, &freqs, CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE); >> >> This is replicated over all cpufreq drivers today and there doesn't exists a >> good enough reason why this shouldn't be moved to cpufreq core instead. >> >> Earlier patches have added support in cpufreq core to do cpufreq notification on >> frequency change, this one removes it from this driver. >> >> Some related minor cleanups are also done along with it. >> >> Cc: Russell King >> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar > > Shouldn't this patch set CPUFREQ_ASYNC_NOTIFICATION somewhere? As far as I can see, sa11x0 completes frequency transition from within target() and so it does it synchronously.. And so it doesn't need to set CPUFREQ_ASYNC_NOTIFICATION... Am I missing something? -- 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/