On 31-07-15, 08:30, Radivoje Jovanovic wrote: > I just looked over the notifier in the current upstream (my patch was > made on our production kernel which is 3.14 and has old notifier > implementation with notifier_device in place) and I see your point.
That's disappointing. You were expected to check if the same problem exists in mainline. > I agree with you that this patch is trivial for the current > implementation since the notifier, as it is currently, will enforce > cpu_cooling policy change at every CPUFREQ_ADJUST which would cause > problems in our current implementation. In our implementation there is > a cpufreq driver that will also change policies during CPUFREQ_ADJUST, > once the request comes from the underlying FW so there would be a fight > who gets there first since cpu_cooling will change the policy in > CPUFREQ_ADJUST notifier_chain and the driver would do the same thing. > It seems to me that better implementation of the cpu_cooling notifer > would be to keep the flag and change the policy in CPUFREQ_ADJUST only > when the change was requested by cpu_cooling, and update the current > state of cpufreq_cooling_device during CPUFREQ_NOTIFY event. > What do you think? I think the way cpu-cooling is written today, is an *ugly* hack. We hack the notifier to change policy->max and no one is notified for it. That's crap. I would rather get some help from cpufreq core on that. Which can provide some APIs to take care of thermal considerations. Okay, I push that to my todo list. Will keep you all posted. -- viresh -- 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/
