On 22 February 2013 05:05, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Why don't you use different values here?
>
> If you need only one value, one #define should be sufficient.
This is the fixup i have for this, I will push all patches again to
cpufreq-for-3.10 branch:
--
On 22 February 2013 07:51, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, February 22, 2013 07:38:12 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> No. These are used atleast for ondemand & conservative.
>
> They will be after the next patch, you mean? :-)
> Well, it appeared so from the next patch ...
Yes :)
__
On Friday, February 22, 2013 07:38:12 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 22 February 2013 05:05, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Monday, February 11, 2013 01:20:00 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
>
> >> This patch is inclined towards providing this infrastructure. Because we
> >> are
> >> required to allocate g
On 22 February 2013 05:05, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, February 11, 2013 01:20:00 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> This patch is inclined towards providing this infrastructure. Because we are
>> required to allocate governor's resources dynamically now, we must do it at
>> policy creation and
On Monday, February 11, 2013 01:20:00 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Currently, there can't be multiple instances of single governor_type. If we
> have
> a multi-package system, where we have multiple instances of struct policy (per
> package), we can't have multiple instances of same governor. i.e. We
Currently, there can't be multiple instances of single governor_type. If we have
a multi-package system, where we have multiple instances of struct policy (per
package), we can't have multiple instances of same governor. i.e. We can't have
multiple instances of ondemand governor for multiple packag
