From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Viresh Kumar Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/18] cpufreq: Manage fallback policies in a list Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 13:36:47 +0530 Message-ID: References: <6147604.f4mimnOd4x@vostro.rjw.lan> <54D2CD76.2030609@codeaurora.org> <1746505.56yzpQ04cT@vostro.rjw.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: Received: from mail-ob0-f171.google.com ([209.85.214.171]:33683 "EHLO mail-ob0-f171.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756139AbbBQIGr (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Feb 2015 03:06:47 -0500 Received: by mail-ob0-f171.google.com with SMTP id gq1so50627597obb.2 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 00:06:47 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <1746505.56yzpQ04cT@vostro.rjw.lan> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Saravana Kannan , Linaro Kernel Mailman List , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , Stephen Boyd , Prarit Bhargava On 5 February 2015 at 23:11, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > I'm still concerned about the case when the last policy CPU is physically > going away, in which we do the offline as a preliminary step and then > will go for full CPU device unregistration. I need more clarity on how this happens. So, on a physical hotplug out: - We first do cpu offline, i.e. hotplug notifier gets called. - And then during unregistration the sysfs remove will get called? I haven't taken care of this as I never understood what actually happens in terms of code sequencing .. Will take care of that in next revision once I get answers to above queries. -- viresh