[PATCH 00/10] cpufreq: Migrate users of policy notifiers to QoS requests

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 12:14 PM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar at linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On 16-07-19, 12:06, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 11:49 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar at linaro.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > 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 :)
>
> > > 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.
>
> > > 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.