On 02-06-16, 22:35, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > Quoting from this very cover letter "This change allows us to remove > the (duplicate) sorted-freq-table, which > was added by following series:", so why to add it in the first place?
Okay, that's fine. > Besides, there already is a number of tables (per policy which in some > important cases pretty much means per CPU) in cpufreq that contain > more-or-less the same information. For example, if acpi-cpufreq is in > use, the ACPI layer has a table coming from _PSS, the driver creates > freq_table to pass to the core and there is an additional one for the > stats. And your series adds one more just so it is ordered. Come on. Of course. > If you want to clean that up, fine, but please don't do that in a > hurry. Let's talk about it a bit more without sending any more > patches in that area for the time being. Okay, I will send all the fixes that you can apply cleanly now in a separate set. So, yeah, I get your overall concern. What about this: - A single patchset to make sure the current policy->freq_table is always sorted in Ascending order of frequencies. - And this sorting will be done per policy only when the policy is first created. - Which would eventually mean merging this series with the [v2 0/2] one. Will that work ? -- viresh
