On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 12:14 PM Viresh Kumar [off-list ref] wrote:

On 16-07-19, 12:06, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 11:49 AM Viresh Kumar [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Hello,

Now that cpufreq core supports taking QoS requests for min/max cpu
frequencies, lets migrate rest of the users to using them instead of the
policy notifiers.

Technically, this still is linux-next only. :-)

True :)

quoted

quoted

The CPUFREQ_NOTIFY and CPUFREQ_ADJUST events of the policy notifiers are
removed as a result, but we have to add CPUFREQ_CREATE_POLICY and
CPUFREQ_REMOVE_POLICY events to it for the acpi stuff specifically. So
the policy notifiers aren't completely removed.

That's not entirely accurate, because arch_topology is going to use
CPUFREQ_CREATE_POLICY now too.

Yeah, I thought about that while writing this patchset and
coverletter. But had it not been required for ACPI, I would have done
it differently for the arch-topology code. Maybe direct calling of
arch-topology routine from cpufreq core. I wanted to get rid of the
policy notifiers completely but I couldn't find a better way of doing
it for ACPI stuff.

quoted

quoted

Boot tested on my x86 PC and ARM hikey board. Nothing looked broken :)

This has already gone through build bot for a few days now.

So I'd prefer patches [5-8] to go right after the first one and then
do the cleanups on top of that, as somebody may want to backport the
essential changes without the cleanups.

In the exceptional case where nobody finds anything wrong with the
patches (highly unlikely), do you want me to resend with reordering or
you can reorder them while applying? There are no dependencies between
those patches anyway.

Please resend the reordered set when the merge window closes.