From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Jones Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/2] RFC: CPU frequency max as PM QoS param Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 09:37:29 -0500 Message-ID: <20120306143729.GB29474@redhat.com> References: <87d39fk2n3.fsf@ti.com> <20120228005630.GA15348@envy17> <87ty2b5mdo.fsf@amiettinen-lnx.nvidia.com> <201203042346.54468.rjw@sisk.pl> <87399lvrxj.fsf@amiettinen-lnx.nvidia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87399lvrxj.fsf@amiettinen-lnx.nvidia.com> Sender: cpufreq-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Antti P Miettinen Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , markgross@thegnar.org, Kevin Hilman , Len Brown , cpufreq List , j-pihet , pavel@ucw.cz, Linux PM list On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 02:23:52PM +0200, Antti P Miettinen wrote: > "Rafael J. Wysocki" writes: > > On Tuesday, February 28, 2012, Antti P Miettinen wrote: > [..] > >> So what do other people think? Could we merge global CPU frequency > >> constraints for now? > > > > Not without an ACK from Dave (the cpufreq maintainer), that's for sure. > > Dave - any comments about these? > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.cpufreq/7794 > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.cpufreq/7797 > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.cpufreq/7800 I really dislike how this is exposed to userspace. How is a user to know whether scaling_max_freq or cpu_freq_max takes priority ? Given the confusion we already have from users when the bios_limit enforces limits, giving them two knobs to do the same thing seems like a bad idea to me. I don't see what problem this is solving that you couldn't solve just by setting scaling_max_freq. Dave