Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] Add required-opps support to devfreq passive gov

From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com>
Cc: MyungJoo Ham <myungjoo.ham@samsung.com>,
	Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@samsung.com>,
	Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@samsung.com>,
	Viresh Kumar <vireshk@kernel.org>, Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>,
	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
	Sibi Sankar <sibis@codeaurora.org>,
	Android Kernel Team <kernel-team@android.com>,
	Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] Add required-opps support to devfreq passive gov
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 10:52:29 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190725052229.znf6asnvl44rjqxg@vireshk-i7> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGETcx_ZHXkjZMBhO8YTW2fMyVqmsj8f9F8d6oJTn=NmRL1q=A@mail.gmail.com>

On 24-07-19, 20:40, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 7:30 PM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > On 23-07-19, 18:42, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> > > The devfreq passive governor scales the frequency of a "child" device based
> > > on the current frequency of a "parent" device (not parent/child in the
> > > sense of device hierarchy). As of today, the passive governor requires one
> > > of the following to work correctly:
> > > 1. The parent and child device have the same number of frequencies
> > > 2. The child device driver passes a mapping function to translate from
> > >    parent frequency to child frequency.
> >
> > > v3 -> v4:
> > > - Fixed documentation comments
> > > - Fixed order of functions in .h file
> > > - Renamed the new xlate API
> > > - Caused _set_required_opps() to fail if all required opps tables aren't
> > >   linked.
> >
> > We are already in the middle of a discussion for your previous version
> > and I haven't said yet that I am happy with what you suggested just 2
> > days back. Why send another version so soon ?
> 
> I wanted you to see how I addressed your comments.

Sure, but that is just half the comments.

> It didn't look like
> you were going to make more comments on the code.

I posted some queries and you posted your opinions on them. Now
shouldn't I get a chance to reply again to see if I agree with your
replies or if we can settle to something else ? I only got one day in
between where I was busy with other stuff and so couldn't come back to
it. Please wait a little longer specially when the comments aren't
minor in nature.

Anyway, lets get over it now. Lets continue our discussion on V3 and
then we can have a V5 :)

Have a good day Saravana.

-- 
viresh