Hi Amit,

Thanks for your feedback :)

On 18 August 2013 16:11, amit daniel kachhap [off-list ref] wrote:

This new API is fine but I have another idea.

good.

Say During the registration of the frequency table cpufreq_policy can
be registered as SCALE_DIRECT or SCALE_STEPS. With SCALE_DIRECT flag,
valid frequency will be requested. With this flags the governor itself
can  can figure out if frequency scaling is required or not and very
few calls to __cpufreq_driver_target will happen.

Honestly speaking I couldn't get what your idea is :) ... but governor is
in no position to make this direct call to drivers.. Taking such stuff to
governors will replicate this code again.. Its better all governors call
some common part of cpufreq.c which then decides what to do..

But i agree that in this approach cpufreq_frequency_table_target is
still required but again it can be optimized by binary search as
currently the search is linear.

Frequencies in this table aren't required to be in ascending order :)