On Friday, November 28, 2014 10:43:37 AM Wang Weidong wrote: > Hi Rafael and Viresh > > Sorry to trouble you again. As for: > "acpi-cpufreq: get the cur_freq from acpi_processor_performance states" > I do it again, and add the other patch. > > patch #1: acpi-cpufreq: make the freq_table store the same freq value > > I think it can work. The set of available states which come > from acpi won't change. Just like the power would be remove, > the acpi driver will do that: > call > ->acpi_processor_ppc_has_changed > ->cpufreq_update_policy > ->acpi_ppc_notifier_block.notifier_call > ->acpi_processor_ppc_notifier > ->cpufreq_verify_within_limits > The progress will change the policy's min_freq and max_freq > while it won't change the set of states(freq_tables).
OK, so the above information needs to go into the changelog of patch [1/2]. Also, please clarify the problem description in that changelog, it is very difficult to understand the way it is now. > patch #2: cpufreq: show the real avail freqs with the freq_table > > when the min_freq and max_freq change, we should sync the availble > freqs. Why? Do any other cpufreq drivers do that? Rafael -- 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/