From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Borislav Petkov Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] CPUFreq: Implement per policy instances of governors Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 14:04:03 +0100 Message-ID: <20130204130403.GD13909@pd.tnic> References: <5808458.pvV2iHpBWm@vostro.rjw.lan> <20130204123221.GA22340@pd.tnic> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=alien8.de; s=alien8; t=1359983052; bh=id3mwjrVWgZEr6YMJLByewydB71OJjC6IqIyP0UPF7k=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:In-Reply-To; b=RQqUQjGQONyEeXpOnv1IDsyj/3FoGLUIF8Mw2u C2Notp8W1nGF0Z0hgcLUj2wd4eyfRl76frS5nV+DWYMnoK/3xQJsgT0XfLoMIvn8gO2 ssjYqb/1rKNBROMi6j4bPjhtO7G9dS7JTi2pqVlwLvGaH1ZnQW7LwMb5OISERSsnao= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=alien8.de; s=alien8; t=1359983051; bh=id3mwjrVWgZEr6YMJLByewydB71OJjC6IqIyP0UPF7k=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:In-Reply-To; b=ZMNU6l/iv1USYzpFGZCzIR6SocSiBI8vb+UaY4 eHDzTMzJl58BMahNAl8uI2cancDsq8cravr+OP4Jw1l6tq5q0FLNw5rYL9AoZCk8/NJ mY5+efEi28zxC87m//WWDXv5x2rkZrqPCIykqHGhbywWeR8iH0yKIoLncKHlPUp1gg= Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Viresh Kumar Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , cpufreq@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org, robin.randhawa@arm.com, Steve.Bannister@arm.com, Liviu.Dudau@arm.com On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 06:24:19PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > That's why i am highlighting it again and again. :) Ah, see, someone caught up with it :). > What i believe is, the place where this directory was present earlier > (cpu/cpufreq/) wasn't the right place. Everything else was in cpu/cpu*/cpufreq, > then why this in cpu/cpufreq/ ? For the simple reason that the "cpu*" stuff is per-cpu - the "cpu/cpufreq" is per system, i.e. one governor for the whole system. > I don't know how much of a pain it would be to fix userspace for it, > but i know it wouldn't be that small. I wouldn't fix userspace but simply not touch it. You can add your per-policy stuff in "cpu/cpu*" as new sysfs nodes and no need to change anything. And, also, as I suggested earlier, you should make it configurable since this code wouldn't make sense on x86, for example, where one system-wide governor should suffice. > I had another idea of doing this only for platforms where we have > multiple struct policy alive at the same time. But didn't wanted to > implement it before discussing this further. Simply put it behind a config option like CONFIG_CPU_IDLE_MULTIPLE_DRIVERS, call the whole menu "Multi-power-domain-policy" something and that should be modulary enough. Thanks. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine. --