On 10/22/2012 07:13 PM, Julius Werner wrote: >> Could we just say this is always true because state[i+1] consumes less >> than state[i] ? >> >> And then just remove the 'set_power_state' function, and the field >> 'driver->power_specified' ? >> >> That will cleanup the code and fix this problem, no ? > > I totally agree with your analysis. Even if a driver were to set > proper usage values (and the power_specified bit), none of the > existing governors would care about those actual numbers (and since > the vast majority of drivers uses fake values anyway, this is not > likely to change in the future). This seems to be a classic example of > unnecessary over-engineering. > > I am mostly interested in getting that bug fixed right now, but > removing unnecessary code is always a good thing. If you think it > would have a good chance of getting merged, I would be happy to draft > up a larger patch that refactors power_usage away completely.
I am in favor of removing the unnecessary code as it fixes a bug also but I am not a maintainer, so I can't tell if it has a good chance to be merged as a bug fix. I think Rafael can tell us what approach he would prefer. Thanks -- Daniel -- <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook | <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter | <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
