On 16 May 2014 00:47, Stephen Warren <swar...@wwwdotorg.org> wrote: > This seems rather complex. Can't either the driver or the cpufreq core > be responsible for all of the notifications? Otherwise, the logic gets > rather complex, and spread between the core and the driver.
I do agree about that and that's why added that 'ugly' statement. > Perhaps the core should make separate calls into the driver to switch to > the temporary frequency and the final frequency, so it can manage all > the notifications. Probably best to use a separate function pointer for > the temporary change so the driver can easily know what it's doing. Hmm, that sounds like a much better approach. Let me try to code it. -- 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/
