Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Processor Clocking Control interface driver

[Dominik Brodowski]

Hey,

On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 06:08:08PM +0000, Chumbalkar, Nagananda wrote:
> Hi, I have addressed your concerns below: 

Thanks!

> >If this is _really_ necessary... Doesn't the driver version 
> >relate to some
> >Linux kernel version anyway?
> >
> 
> If distros backport this driver to different kernel versions, it will be
> easy to keep track of which driver version is in the distro.

Well, IMVHO it's ugly, but if Linux ACPI and cpufreq folks are fine with
it, so be it.

> Yes, it works fine. Both "ondemand" and "conservative" sanitize the
> latency value, and set it to a default value which is good.

OK. Any way to fix the spec for the next revision, though?

> >> +	if (target_freq <= 
> >(ioread32(&pcch_hdr->minimum_frequency) * 1000)) {
> >> +		target_freq = 
> >ioread32(&pcch_hdr->minimum_frequency) * 1000;
> >> +		dprintk("target: target_freq for cpu %d was 
> >below limit, "
> >> +			"converted it to %d\n", cpu, target_freq);
> >> +	}
> >
> >why not do this in the _verify() step? Does pcch_hdr->minimum_frequency
> >even change "on the fly"?
> 
> pcch_hdr->minimum_frequency does not change "on the fly". Also, there is no
> need for those IO accesses:

target_freq cannot be below policy->min or above policy->max. If it were,
the whole cpufreq subsystem is broken. So there's no need for these checks,
AFAICS.

Best,
	Dominik
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/