Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190724014222.110767-1-saravanak@google.com> <20190725023050.7ggjbwsthoxpkexv@vireshk-i7>
In-Reply-To: <20190725023050.7ggjbwsthoxpkexv@vireshk-i7>
From:   Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 24 Jul 2019 20:40:47 -0700
Message-ID: <CAGETcx_ZHXkjZMBhO8YTW2fMyVqmsj8f9F8d6oJTn=NmRL1q=A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] Add required-opps support to devfreq passive gov
To:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Cc:     MyungJoo Ham <myungjoo.ham@samsung.com>,
        Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@samsung.com>,
        Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@samsung.com>,
        Viresh Kumar <vireshk@kernel.org>, Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Sibi Sankar <sibis@codeaurora.org>,
        Android Kernel Team <kernel-team@android.com>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 7:30 PM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On 23-07-19, 18:42, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> > The devfreq passive governor scales the frequency of a "child" device based
> > on the current frequency of a "parent" device (not parent/child in the
> > sense of device hierarchy). As of today, the passive governor requires one
> > of the following to work correctly:
> > 1. The parent and child device have the same number of frequencies
> > 2. The child device driver passes a mapping function to translate from
> >    parent frequency to child frequency.
>
> > v3 -> v4:
> > - Fixed documentation comments
> > - Fixed order of functions in .h file
> > - Renamed the new xlate API
> > - Caused _set_required_opps() to fail if all required opps tables aren't
> >   linked.
>
> We are already in the middle of a discussion for your previous version
> and I haven't said yet that I am happy with what you suggested just 2
> days back. Why send another version so soon ?

I wanted you to see how I addressed your comments. It didn't look like
you were going to make more comments on the code.

> The next merge window is
> also very far in time from now.
>
> Please wait for a few days before sending newer versions, I will
> continue discussion on the previous version only for now.

Ok

-Saravana