From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752889AbaEGGEe (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 7 May 2014 02:04:34 -0400
Received: from mail-oa0-f43.google.com ([209.85.219.43]:35921 "EHLO
	mail-oa0-f43.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751399AbaEGGEc (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 7 May 2014 02:04:32 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAGo_u6o0J_T_hnmDAiYpsDxe77iKPCjuWisZJfTjYYOVGJF96A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <000001cf643d$69e5e350$3db1a9f0$@samsung.com>
	<CAOh2x=m8DzmLOGqL0E_seOZMuzU=O9vQuu-JEp+E5454RmfEXw@mail.gmail.com>
	<003901cf6664$e4e8d2a0$aeba77e0$@samsung.com>
	<CAKohpon7W726Hxj5OJ6SnmPz3gYhAeBRr1wS3SCa3F2hSLriLQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<5367946F.1030407@ti.com>
	<CAKohpon-KZpSJK7PxpLjZS7sVPcYraDxb4oJHN6dxSagD+F--Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGo_u6pUVeMM9mqe5htvM1X_4pkRGEUVOA2ty4ZPfUyLcLZkrw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKohpokfcptseU6ST+e_GfU6poVJxXCXMeoYCvT65060v5GJYQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<003e01cf6984$fb950280$f2bf0780$@samsung.com>
	<CAGo_u6o0J_T_hnmDAiYpsDxe77iKPCjuWisZJfTjYYOVGJF96A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 11:34:32 +0530
Message-ID: <CAKohpo=qbj9w5=wWHEG=9c2spjbbhaDaXG+F-Lhe9QffV9sDbw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] PM / OPP: Add support for descending order for
 cpufreq table
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To: Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>
Cc: Jonghwan Choi <jhbird.choi@samsung.com>,
        Linux PM list <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>,
        Amit Daniel Kachhap <amit.daniel@samsung.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 7 May 2014 06:30, Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com> wrote:
> So, we could do [2] as default as well, if it is determined to impact
> no one else making any form of assumptions on table ordering - but it
> might be preferable for drivers not to depend on framework ordering of
> data as things could change in the future.

Exactly and that's what we discussed earlier. I don't want to change the
default behavior at all, as somebody may request the ascending order
tomorrow :)

@Jonghwan: Please consider doing this:
- Don't play with the order of frequencies in table.
- Instead initialize .driver_data filed with values that you need to write
in the registers for all frequencies. i.e. 0 for highest frequency and
FREQ_COUNT-1 for lowest one.