[PATCH] cpufreq: exynos: Broadcast frequency change notifications for all cores
Tomasz Figa
t.figa at samsung.com
Thu Jan 31 11:07:06 EST 2013
On Thursday 31 of January 2013 20:46:10 Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 31 January 2013 20:34, Tomasz Figa <t.figa at samsung.com> wrote:
> > Well, the fact that it isn't used at the moment doesn't mean that it
> > shouldn't be set correctly. The field is present in the structure and
> > has a set of defined values - one of which should be selected. For
> > example, I can imagine some governor taking this information into
> > account.
> Governors already take this information but from a different variable:
> policy->cpus.
>
> Look at the patch which added it:
>
> commit 3b2d99429e3386b6e2ac949fc72486509c8bbe36
> Author: Venkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi at intel.com>
> Date: Wed Dec 14 15:05:00 2005 -0500
>
> P-state software coordination for ACPI core
>
> http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5737
>
> Signed-off-by: Venkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi at intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Len Brown <len.brown at intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c | 228
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ include/acpi/processor.h |
> 27 ++++++++++++-
> include/linux/cpufreq.h | 4 ++
> 3 files changed, 258 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
>
> It was clearly for ACPI, but was probably named badly and we people
> got confused that it is for our use.
Hmm. Now as I think of it, there might be another confusing aspect:
Could you explain what "sw coordination" and "any coordination" mean?
I mean specifically cpufreq_policy.cpus and cpufreq_policy.related_cpus
masks.
Best regards,
--
Tomasz Figa
Samsung Poland R&D Center
SW Solution Development, Linux Platform
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list