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: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 11:50:22 +0530 Message-ID: References: <43d728016b775d1b0fc02c981eb0520ac08297f5.1422346933.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org> <54D14B7B.8040307@codeaurora.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: Received: from mail-ob0-f175.google.com ([209.85.214.175]:33799 "EHLO mail-ob0-f175.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751072AbbBDGUX (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Feb 2015 01:20:23 -0500 Received: by mail-ob0-f175.google.com with SMTP id va2so14634189obc.6 for ; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 22:20:22 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <54D14B7B.8040307@codeaurora.org> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: Saravana Kannan Cc: Rafael Wysocki , Linaro Kernel Mailman List , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , Stephen Boyd , Prarit Bhargava On 4 February 2015 at 03:58, Saravana Kannan wrote: > Can you explain why we need a fallback list in the first place? Now that we > are not destroying and creating policy objects, I don't see any point in the > fallback list. Because we wanted to mark the policy inactive. But as I have introduced another field for that now, probably it can be fixed. Will check again on what can be done. Can you review the other patches so that they are reviewed once before sending V2 here ?