From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: viresh.kumar@linaro.org (Viresh Kumar)
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 11:14:01 +0530
Subject: [PATCH v2] cpufreq: Don't destroy/realloc policy/sysfs on
 hotplug/suspend
In-Reply-To: <53C4D12E.3040807@mit.edu>
References: <1404959850-11617-1-git-send-email-skannan@codeaurora.org>
 <1405052287-4744-1-git-send-email-skannan@codeaurora.org>
 <CAKohponB9feyh50p+dL5hyU1ffHAzHU59G-sYCrCm1AbHQe9hw@mail.gmail.com>
 <2f549e6e4871ccf2a94dd4c8872c7a0b.squirrel@www.codeaurora.org>
 <CAKohpokhmj1OkCRj=X+Q7eYiun8fsqD2dpEt66VKYnqo3dENVA@mail.gmail.com>
 <53C0A12A.2060204@codeaurora.org>
 <CAKohpon9en_VnSx+CVydPsWBHtArvmazn0hrodrRJt9jgOa0-g@mail.gmail.com>
 <53C42AA8.8010107@codeaurora.org>
 <CAKohpomkqbHZo9KrJMSwsEKGt6+Ac2Fg2X0+S7ZAo=OzhAc45g@mail.gmail.com>
 <53C4BDFB.70707@codeaurora.org> <53C4D12E.3040807@mit.edu>
Message-ID: <CAKohpon8zDP3hVFMQV4CO2zOkb-AwnDws8xW=H8Hm4=gW=8FGQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 15 July 2014 12:28, Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa@mit.edu> wrote:
> Wait, allowing an offline CPU to be the policy->cpu (i.e., the CPU which is
> considered as the master of the policy/group) is just absurd.

Yeah, that was as Absurd as I am :)

> The goal of this patchset should be to just de-couple the sysfs files/ownership
> from the policy->cpu to an extent where it doesn't matter who owns those
> files, and probably make it easier to do CPU hotplug without having to
> destroy and recreate the files on every hotplug operation.

I went to that Absurd idea because we thought we can skip playing with
the sysfs nodes on suspend/hotplug.

And if policy->cpu keeps changing with hotplug, we *may* have to keep
sysfs stuff moving as well. One way to avoid that is by using something
like: policy->sysfs_cpu, but wasn't sure if that's the right path to follow.

Lets see what Saravana's new patchset has for us :)