Re: [PATCH 1/3] PM / OPP: Add support for descending order for cpufreq table

From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To: Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>
Cc: Jonghwan Choi <jhbird.choi@samsung.com>,
	Linux PM list <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
	open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
	Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>,
	Amit Daniel Kachhap <amit.daniel@samsung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] PM / OPP: Add support for descending order for cpufreq table
Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 11:34:32 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAKohpo=qbj9w5=wWHEG=9c2spjbbhaDaXG+F-Lhe9QffV9sDbw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGo_u6o0J_T_hnmDAiYpsDxe77iKPCjuWisZJfTjYYOVGJF96A@mail.gmail.com>

On 7 May 2014 06:30, Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com> wrote:
> So, we could do [2] as default as well, if it is determined to impact
> no one else making any form of assumptions on table ordering - but it
> might be preferable for drivers not to depend on framework ordering of
> data as things could change in the future.

Exactly and that's what we discussed earlier. I don't want to change the
default behavior at all, as somebody may request the ascending order
tomorrow :)

@Jonghwan: Please consider doing this:
- Don't play with the order of frequencies in table.
- Instead initialize .driver_data filed with values that you need to write
in the registers for all frequencies. i.e. 0 for highest frequency and
FREQ_COUNT-1 for lowest one.