On 11-08-21, 10:48, Viresh Kumar wrote:

On 10-08-21, 13:35, Quentin Perret wrote:

quoted

This series adds more code than it removes,

Sadly yes :(

quoted

and the unregistration is
not a fix as we don't ever remove the EM tables by design, so not sure
either of these points are valid arguments.

I think that design needs to be looked over again, it looks broken to
me everytime I land onto this code. I wonder why we don't unregister
stuff.

Coming back to this series. We have two options, based on what I
proposed here:

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pm/20210811050327.3yxrk4kqxjjwaztx@vireshk-i7/ (local)

1. Let cpufreq core register with EM on behalf of cpufreq drivers.

2. Update drivers to use ->ready() callback to do this stuff.

I am fine with both :)

-- 
viresh