On 15/06/2015 20:37, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 15.06.15 at 14:28, <wei.w.w...@intel.com> wrote:
> > On 15/06/2015 17:15, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >>> On 15.06.15 at 02:30, <wei.w.w...@intel.com> wrote:
> >> > We actually want it be intel_pstate specific. If maintainers agree,
> >> > I think renaming it to intel_pstate_policy is a good option.
> >>
> >> No, this name is just ugly. If you need driver specific data, have a
> >> void
> > pointer
> >> in the generic structure; the driver can then allocate memory to be
> >> pointed to by that, and can store there whatever private data it needs.
> >
> > OK. I plan to make the following changes:
> >
> > 1) in cpufreq_policy, add a field - void *private_data;
> >
> >
> > 2) add a new structure:
> > struct intel_pstate_policy {
> > unsigned int policy;
> > }
>
> struct intel_pstate_private or struct intel_pstate_data please.
>
"struct perf_limits" is currently used only by intel_pstate, should we also
move it to the intel_pstate_private struct, instead of the cpufreq_policy?
Best,
Wei
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
