From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Viresh Kumar Subject: Re: [Discussion] Performance levels of power domains Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 15:53:29 +0530 Message-ID: <20161027102329.GF10423@vireshk-i7> References: <7hvawfq6kh.fsf@baylibre.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail-pf0-f177.google.com ([209.85.192.177]:36096 "EHLO mail-pf0-f177.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S942363AbcJ0OMq (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Oct 2016 10:12:46 -0400 Received: by mail-pf0-f177.google.com with SMTP id e6so18387184pfk.3 for ; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 07:12:46 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Kevin Hilman , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Vincent Guittot , Ulf Hansson , Michael Turquette , Stephen Boyd , "Nayak, Rajendra" , Georgi Djakov , Lists linaro-kernel , Mark Brown On 27-10-16, 12:11, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On the Intel side we also have a mechanism to tell the processor about > the power/performance preference and it would be good to have a common > way to do it on all platforms and genpd doesn't look like a > particularly good place for that. > > Let's talk about this at the LPC. Thanks for your feedback Rafael. As I wouldn't be attending the LPC (though would try to get some information from the guys who are going to attend it), will it be possible for you to summarize why you think genpd is not the right choice here? -- viresh