On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 05:53:09PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote: > Could you enlighten me a bit about how to define the arch specific > implementation without getting into trouble? I'm failing miserably :(
Hmm, this was not supposed to be difficult.. :/ > I thought the arm arch-specific topology.h file was a good place to put > the define as it get included in sched.h, so I did a: > > #define arch_scale_freq_capacity arm_arch_scale_freq_capacity > > However, I have to put a function prototype in the same (or some other > included) header file to avoid doing an implicit function definition. > arch_scale_freq_capacity() takes a struct sched_domain pointer, so I > have to include linux/sched.h which leads to circular dependency between > linux/sched.h and topology.h. Why would you have to include linux/sched.h ? #define arch_scale_freq_capacity arch_scale_freq_capacity struct sched_domain; extern unsigned long arch_scale_freq_capacity(struct sched_domain *, int cpu); Would work from you asm/topology.h, right? > We can drop the sched_domain pointer as we don't use it, but I'm going > to do the same trick for arch_scale_cpu_capacity() as well which does > require the sd pointer. Sure, dropping that pointer is fine. > Finally, is introducing an ARCH_HAS_SCALE_FREQ_CAPACITY or similar a > complete no go? It seems out of style, I'd have to go look for the email thread, but this should more or less be the same no? -- 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/
