From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH v2 0/8] RFC: CPU frequency min/max as PM QoS params Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 00:16:03 +0100 Message-ID: <201201190016.03552.rjw@sisk.pl> References: <1326697201-32406-1-git-send-email-amiettinen@nvidia.com> <20120118031319.GB27153@mgross-G62> <87ehuxqveg.fsf@amiettinen-lnx.nvidia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <87ehuxqveg.fsf@amiettinen-lnx.nvidia.com> Sender: cpufreq-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Antti P Miettinen Cc: linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, cpufreq@vger.kernel.org, mark gross List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday, January 18, 2012, Antti P Miettinen wrote: > mark gross writes: > > I'm not a big fan of the cpufreq seamanly redundant export either. > > Doesn't the equivalent data get exported under > > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu?/cpufreq/ ? > > The added sysfs nodes are under /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu?/cpufreq. > They do no not duplicate functionality, they are just an > addition. So please drop them for now. > Currently you can request a new minimum by writing to > scaling_min_freq and you can view the currently enforced policy->min via > the same file. Patch 3 adds read-only policy_{min,max}_freq nodes for > being able to inspect the user_policy.min/max. This is related to patch > 4 which preserves the requested min/max in user_policy instead of > storing the enforced min/max to user_policy. This is in turn related to > patch 5. We need to be able to revert back to requested min/max when PM > QoS constraints get lifted. I think we do not want to overwrite > user_policy min/max with policy->min/max as those values can be affected > by temporary constraints. > > I would welcome more comments on patches 3 and 4. I would drop patch 3 and fold patch 4 into patch 5. Thanks, Rafael