From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Viresh Kumar Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 01/35] cpufreq: Implement light weight ->target_index() routine Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 10:07:37 +0530 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: amit daniel kachhap Cc: Andrew Lunn , Steven Miao , Linus Walleij , Sekhar Nori , sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, Hans-Christian Egtvedt , Jesper Nilsson , Kukjin Kim , Stephen Warren , Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov , "patches@linaro.org" , "cpufreq@vger.kernel.org" , Lists linaro-kernel , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , LAK , John Crispin , Mikael Starvik , Tony Luck , Eric Miao , linux-cris-kernel@axis.com, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Hi Amit, Thanks for your feedback :) On 18 August 2013 16:11, amit daniel kachhap wrote: > This new API is fine but I have another idea. good. > Say During the registration of the frequency table cpufreq_policy can > be registered as SCALE_DIRECT or SCALE_STEPS. With SCALE_DIRECT flag, > valid frequency will be requested. With this flags the governor itself > can can figure out if frequency scaling is required or not and very > few calls to __cpufreq_driver_target will happen. Honestly speaking I couldn't get what your idea is :) ... but governor is in no position to make this direct call to drivers.. Taking such stuff to governors will replicate this code again.. Its better all governors call some common part of cpufreq.c which then decides what to do.. > But i agree that in this approach cpufreq_frequency_table_target is > still required but again it can be optimized by binary search as > currently the search is linear. Frequencies in this table aren't required to be in ascending order :) From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: viresh.kumar@linaro.org (Viresh Kumar) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 10:07:37 +0530 Subject: [PATCH V2 01/35] cpufreq: Implement light weight ->target_index() routine In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Amit, Thanks for your feedback :) On 18 August 2013 16:11, amit daniel kachhap wrote: > This new API is fine but I have another idea. good. > Say During the registration of the frequency table cpufreq_policy can > be registered as SCALE_DIRECT or SCALE_STEPS. With SCALE_DIRECT flag, > valid frequency will be requested. With this flags the governor itself > can can figure out if frequency scaling is required or not and very > few calls to __cpufreq_driver_target will happen. Honestly speaking I couldn't get what your idea is :) ... but governor is in no position to make this direct call to drivers.. Taking such stuff to governors will replicate this code again.. Its better all governors call some common part of cpufreq.c which then decides what to do.. > But i agree that in this approach cpufreq_frequency_table_target is > still required but again it can be optimized by binary search as > currently the search is linear. Frequencies in this table aren't required to be in ascending order :)