On 30/03/17 22:22, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thursday, March 30, 2017 08:50:11 AM Vikram Mulukutla wrote: > > > > > OK > > > > > > So there are two pieces here. > > > > > > One is that if we want *all* drivers to work with schedutil, we need to > > > keep > > > the kthread for the ones that will never be reworked (because nobody > > > cares > > > etc). But then perhaps the kthread implementation may be left alone > > > (because > > > nobody cares etc). > > > > > > The second one is that there are drivers operating in-context that work > > > with > > > schedutil already, so I don't see major obstacles to making more > > > drivers work > > > that way. That would be only a matter of reworking the drivers in > > > question. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Rafael > > > > There are some MSM platforms that do need a kthread and would love to > > use > > schedutil. This is all mainly due to the point that Vincent raised; > > having > > to actually wait for voltage transitions before clock switches. I can't > > speak about the future, but that's the situation right now. Leaving the > > kthread alone for now would be appreciated! > > I was not arguing for removing the kthread (quite opposite rather). > > My point was that *if* it is viable to rework drivers to operate in-context, > that would be the way to go IMO instead of messing up with the kthread thing. >
Right, I agree. Problem is that in principle we might still want to use DEADLINE with the other platforms (MSM being a perfect example), so IMHO we should still try to find a solution for the kthread anyway.
