| Message ID | CAKohpokFCAqdoeBoMJ3Jzh05x8wUg4kfo+XirxUjw=2_4_0wJA@mail.gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | RFC, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote: > On 5 February 2013 21:51, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote: >> commit 15b5548c9ccfb8088270f7574710d9d67edfe33b >> Author: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> >> Date: Tue Feb 5 21:29:05 2013 +0530 >> >> cpufreq: Make governors directory sysfs location based on >> have_multiple_policies >> >> Until now directory for governors tunables was getting created in >> cpu/cpufreq/<gov-name>. With the introduction of following patch: >> "cpufreq: governor: Implement per policy instances of governors" >> >> this directory would be created in >> cpu/cpu<num>/cpufreq/<gov-name>. This might >> break userspace of existing platforms. Lets do this change only >> for platforms >> which need support for multiple policies and thus above mentioned patch. >> >> From now on, such platforms would be require to do following from >> their init() >> routines: >> >> policy->have_multiple_policies = true; >> >> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> >> --- >> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c | 2 +- >> include/linux/cpufreq.h | 14 ++++++++++++++ >> 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > Hi Rafael, > > Because this patch was quite big (317 insertions(+), 238 deletions(-)), i was > planning a detailed self review to capture any mistakes and luckily i found > one for above patch :) > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c > b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c > index 41ee86f..fe037c0 100644 > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c > @@ -342,7 +342,8 @@ int cpufreq_governor_dbs(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, > mutex_lock(&dbs_data->mutex); > mutex_destroy(&cpu_cdbs->timer_mutex); > > - sysfs_remove_group(&policy->kobj, dbs_data->cdata->attr_group); > + sysfs_remove_group(get_governor_parent_kobj(policy), > + dbs_data->cdata->attr_group); > if (dbs_data->cdata->governor == GOV_CONSERVATIVE) > cpufreq_unregister_notifier(cs_ops->notifier_block, > CPUFREQ_TRANSITION_NOTIFIER); > > I have pushed the complete patchset here: > > http://git.linaro.org/gitweb?p=people/vireshk/linux.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/cpufreq-updates > Viresh, perhaps you should ask Stephen Rothwell to pull in your tree to get some more testing before Rafael pulls it in for 3.10? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 6 February 2013 15:38, Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@linaro.org> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote: >> I have pushed the complete patchset here: >> >> http://git.linaro.org/gitweb?p=people/vireshk/linux.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/cpufreq-updates >> > > Viresh, perhaps you should ask Stephen Rothwell to pull in your tree > to get some more testing before Rafael pulls it in for 3.10? Its has been made clear by Rafael that these patches wouldn't make it for 3.9 (though i wanted them to :) ), and so once the merge window is over Rafael might pull them in and so they would reach Stephen's linux-next too... I am not sure if sending a cpufreq pull request directly to Stephen is preferred. @Rafael: ?? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Wednesday, February 06, 2013 03:45:58 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 6 February 2013 15:38, Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@linaro.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote: > >> I have pushed the complete patchset here: > >> > >> http://git.linaro.org/gitweb?p=people/vireshk/linux.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/cpufreq-updates > >> > > > > Viresh, perhaps you should ask Stephen Rothwell to pull in your tree > > to get some more testing before Rafael pulls it in for 3.10? > > Its has been made clear by Rafael that these patches wouldn't make it for > 3.9 (though i wanted them to :) ), and so once the merge window is over > Rafael might pull them in and so they would reach Stephen's linux-next too... > > I am not sure if sending a cpufreq pull request directly to Stephen is > preferred. > @Rafael: ?? You may do that, if you want, but that's slightly confusing. Also the policy is that material which is not going to be included into v3.9 shouldn't be in linux-next before v3.9-rc1. Moreover, for build testing it is sufficient to put it into a branch somewhere at git.kernel.org (as you have already noticed :-)). Thanks, Rafael
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c index 41ee86f..fe037c0 100644 --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c @@ -342,7 +342,8 @@ int cpufreq_governor_dbs(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, mutex_lock(&dbs_data->mutex); mutex_destroy(&cpu_cdbs->timer_mutex); - sysfs_remove_group(&policy->kobj, dbs_data->cdata->attr_group); + sysfs_remove_group(get_governor_parent_kobj(policy), + dbs_data->cdata->attr_group); if (dbs_data->cdata->governor == GOV_CONSERVATIVE) cpufreq_unregister_notifier(cs_ops->notifier_block, CPUFREQ_TRANSITION_NOTIFIER);