From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: mark gross Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] cpufreq: Export user_policy min/max Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 19:53:28 -0800 Message-ID: <20120107035328.GC3119@mgross-G62> References: <1325810186-28986-1-git-send-email-amiettinen@nvidia.com> <1325810186-28986-4-git-send-email-amiettinen@nvidia.com> <20120106153320.GF12530@mgross-G62> <20120106.212926.720061341805749024.apm@brigitte.kvy.fi> Reply-To: markgross@thegnar.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120106.212926.720061341805749024.apm@brigitte.kvy.fi> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: ananaza@iki.fi Cc: linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jan 06, 2012 at 09:29:26PM +0200, Antti P Miettinen wrote: > [seems that posting via gmane is broken - resenting manually via mail > - sorry if you get duplicates] > > mark gross writes: > > Why do you need to export these values here and from the pmqos ABI? > > > > I don't think we want this change. Also, isn't it redundant WRT > > existing CPU freq govoner sysfs output? > > > > --mark > > Hmm.. what do you mean by pmqos ABI? This is related to patch 4. Nothing > critical, just an addition to be able to see the user_policy min/max in > addition to the policy min/max. It's not redundant, it's an > addition. Might be useful for e.g. tests. Maybe I'm missing something but cpufreq already has ABI for setting upper and lower bounds for frequencies. /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/[scaling_min_freq, scaling_max_freq] --mark