diff options
author | Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> | 2013-08-14 16:08:24 +0200 |
---|---|---|
committer | Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> | 2013-10-31 00:11:08 +0100 |
commit | d4019f0a92ab802f385cc9c8ad3ab7b5449712cb (patch) | |
tree | ebd06695585e457ae1bf219653452b111e7508db /firmware/sb16 | |
parent | cpufreq: distinguish drivers that do asynchronous notifications (diff) | |
download | linux-d4019f0a92ab802f385cc9c8ad3ab7b5449712cb.tar.xz linux-d4019f0a92ab802f385cc9c8ad3ab7b5449712cb.zip |
cpufreq: move freq change notifications to cpufreq core
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.
There are few special cases though, like exynos5440, which doesn't do everything
on the call to ->target_index() routine and call some kind of bottom halves for
doing this work, work/tasklet/etc..
They may continue doing notification from their own code as flag:
CPUFREQ_ASYNC_NOTIFICATION is already set for them.
All drivers are also modified in this patch to avoid breaking 'git bisect', as
double notification would happen otherwise.
Acked-by: Hans-Christian Egtvedt <egtvedt@samfundet.no>
Acked-by: Jesper Nilsson <jesper.nilsson@axis.com>
Acked-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Acked-by: Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
Acked-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>
Tested-by: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
Tested-by: Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Diffstat (limited to 'firmware/sb16')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions