Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: suspend/resume governors with PM notifiers

[Viresh Kumar]

On 18 November 2013 19:07, Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The resume/suspend() must be stored in the struct driver->pm? :)

We certainly can't move back to increase redundancy by implementing
driver's specific stuff here :)

>> Apart from that even cpufreq would be a bit hacky as we don't really need
>> per-cpu callbacks..
>>
>
> This maybe depends on where we want the issue to be fixed, right?
> The cpufreq driver also can fix the issue if we run their cpu_driver
> resume/suspend callback earlier.

same as above..

> Another point, I just see cpuidle_resume() and cpuidle_pause() are called in
> the dpm_resume_noirq and dpm_suspend_noirq(). Not sure whether this can be
> applied to cpufreq.

I will still prefer syscore_ops instead of calling framework specific routines
directly from dpm_**() routines.. Don't know why this was done this way
for cpuidle..
--
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/