On 09/13/2013 07:02 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > Most of the drivers do following in their ->target_index() routines: > > struct cpufreq_freqs freqs; > freqs.old = old freq... > freqs.new = new freq... > > cpufreq_notify_transition(policy, &freqs, CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE); > > /* Change rate here */ > > cpufreq_notify_transition(policy, &freqs, CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE); > > This is replicated over all cpufreq drivers today and there doesn't exists a > good enough reason why this shouldn't be moved to cpufreq core instead. > > Earlier patches have added support in cpufreq core to do cpufreq notification > on > frequency change, this one removes it from this driver. > > Some related minor cleanups are also done along with it.
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/tegra-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/tegra-cpufreq.c > @@ -121,21 +117,10 @@ static int tegra_update_cpu_speed(struct cpufreq_policy > *policy, > else > clk_set_rate(emc_clk, 100000000); /* emc 50Mhz */ > > - cpufreq_notify_transition(policy, &freqs, CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE); ... > - cpufreq_notify_transition(policy, &freqs, CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE); I wonder if this series is bisectable? Perhaps I should just go and read the rest of the series, but I presume there's a patch somewhere else that adds those two cpufreq_notify_transition() to the cpufreq core. Either that happens before this patch (in which case listeners will get two notifications each time; perhaps that is safe?), or after this patch (in which case with just this patch applied, no notifications will be sent until a later patch! Aside from that, all the Tegra-specific patches in this series, Acked-by: Stephen Warren <swar...@nvidia.com> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
