From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Javi Merino Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] thermal: re-calculate k_po/k_pu when update sustainable power Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 15:05:24 +0000 Message-ID: <20160106150524.GC2790@e104805> References: <1452070428-2567-1-git-send-email-leo.yan@linaro.org> <20160106100712.GA2790@e104805> <568CF8D2.9040906@linaro.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <568CF8D2.9040906@linaro.org> Sender: linux-doc-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Daniel Thompson Cc: Leo Yan , Jonathan Corbet , Zhang Rui , Eduardo Valentin , Punit Agrawal , Daniel Kurtz , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 11:21:54AM +0000, Daniel Thompson wrote: > On 06/01/16 10:07, Javi Merino wrote: > >On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 04:53:44PM +0800, Leo Yan wrote: > >>k_po/k_pu are two proportional term constants and essentially they have > >>fixed ratio compared with sustainable power. In current implementation, > >>k_po and k_pu are absolute value after calculation and cannot represent > >>the ratio relationship with sustainable power; as a result, when change > >>sustainable power we cannot smoothly change proportional term constant. > > > >In v2 Daniel said that the use case was made up. Can you elaborate on > >why we need this? > > To be clear, I didn't say Leo's use case was made up. In truth I've > never asked Leo what his use case is. Sorry, I didn't mean to say that Leo had made it up. I was just asking for a use case and it looked to me that the "fan inhibitor mode" was something that you guys had talked about. Cheers, Javi > It was simply the use case that I used to illustrate a bug in the v1 > implementation which was made up (and which you asked for more > details of). > > > > Daniel. >