On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 11:01:34AM +0900, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
> Could you give some use-case of DEVFREQ_POLICY_NOTIFIER
> or send use-case patch with this patch?
This is a WIP patch that makes use of the DEVFREQ_POLICY_NOTIFIER:
> I already knew the CPUFREQ_POLICY_NOTIFIER.
> But, until now, there are no any requirements of DEVFREQ_POLICY_NOTIFIER.
> If there are no any use-case, it is not necessary codes.
Sure, I intend to land the above driver upstream if devfreq can
provide the necessary interfaces.
> On 2018년 05월 16일 06:24, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c b/drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c
> > index fe2af6aa88fc..a7294c056f65 100644
> > --- a/drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c
> > +++ b/drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c
> > @@ -273,6 +273,9 @@ int update_devfreq(struct devfreq *devfreq)
> > if (err)
> > return err;
> > + srcu_notifier_call_chain(&devfreq->policy_notifier_list,
> > + DEVFREQ_ADJUST, &freq);
> It is not proper to used 'freq' as the passed data.
> In current step,'freq' is not adjusted and is not final decided
Right, the next revision will pass a struct devfreq_policy instead,
where the notifiers can adjust the min/max values, similar to what