-
Viresh Kumar authored
Most of the drivers do following in their ->target_index() routines: struct cpufreq_freqs freqs; freqs.old = old freq... freqs.new = new freq... cpufreq_notify_transition(policy, &freqs, CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE); /* Change rate here */ cpufreq_notify_transition(policy, &freqs, CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE); This is replicated over all cpufreq drivers today and there doesn't exists a good enough reason why this shouldn't be moved to cpufreq core instead. There are few special cases though, like exynos5440, which doesn't do everything on the call to ->target_index() routine and call some kind of bottom halves for doing this work, work/tasklet/etc.. They may continue doing notification from their own code as flag: CPUFREQ_ASYNC_NOTIFICATION is already set for them. All drivers are also modified in this patch to avoid breaking 'git bisect', as double notification would happen otherwise. Acked-by:
Hans-Christian Egtvedt <egtvedt@samfundet.no> Acked-by:
Jesper Nilsson <jesper.nilsson@axis.com> Acked-by:
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> Acked-by:
Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> Acked-by:
Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com> Tested-by:
Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch> Tested-by:
Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org> Reviewed-by:
Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@intel.com> Signed-off-by:
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> Signed-off-by:
Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
d4019f0a