From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32CE3C31E45 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 17:00:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 083CD206BB for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 17:00:17 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=chromium.org header.i=@chromium.org header.b="GQXJaktv" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1731763AbfFMRAK (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Jun 2019 13:00:10 -0400 Received: from mail-pf1-f196.google.com ([209.85.210.196]:36079 "EHLO mail-pf1-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729782AbfFMAEp (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Jun 2019 20:04:45 -0400 Received: by mail-pf1-f196.google.com with SMTP id r7so4720361pfl.3 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 17:04:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chromium.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=enyuAfwIUm7QZb/zhVy1/4Va6a5/NPi/JrG9djy3bF8=; b=GQXJaktvgKtFOEDW1sUlsUsVwTuVAnIA8hh4WjxCiXsXvlvtfRzGg7etclRAdgKv4U 4ShkffdYG971cLxlYNt6mPgcxcVKbfFPcLkX7gZMRMy0uHwgTA+CLDAnKeuUPidLGO3I bqwz3QvEooRJpl5P8hL/GSorok8hu1ktGl9+0= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=enyuAfwIUm7QZb/zhVy1/4Va6a5/NPi/JrG9djy3bF8=; b=cM6nOxmQEGWylFmhk1lbOcx8NpA+uR8TvQQWwxFwtEpP3kQVtnVN6h4a1P+G1o/KX8 HMFASg4au+XBrjMjRoiIdKYwXvaC2NNJMtx5+u5Q3dZrWSW8sviUfBIcs0qgNaMaO+EH R/7Nb2ew28OO9AUauccUfF7SP5ZSqhWeJOjpYU559Z2s2jwF6YaZurK2A0YW87RclY+b l23Gj3/nqbDe0DsrUCgqywT0pXDdR88xzkukqM86x4I+pul8A7Bjjm5W77zl6pdFaiW3 MDK4WYi/hEJHfYLINieQlHU+ImHBeWDQH3xGp6HfOopNrIlavHivnFitwsFSnczc8y8U h+tg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW/yJjiUpCXtj9feHWGNHqNlc8y8Dk0NrKEgSJBhpmIpilV8VHZ sHDG0EY/KKfNDYe4yflK+oTx4A== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwO5UFiyckgdUgkZVSFQmP4vYWEFYVqaJ7SB58Em//0AXY36VhkhuJlG3u3XDCMdNZATgT/Wg== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:ba94:: with SMTP id t20mr1876181pjr.116.1560384284934; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 17:04:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([2620:15c:202:1:75a:3f6e:21d:9374]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x66sm642436pfx.139.2019.06.12.17.04.43 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 12 Jun 2019 17:04:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 17:04:41 -0700 From: Matthias Kaehlcke To: Viresh Kumar Cc: Rafael Wysocki , Pavel Machek , Len Brown , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Vincent Guittot , Qais.Yousef@arm.com, juri.lelli@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 3/5] PM / QoS: Add support for MIN/MAX frequency constraints Message-ID: <20190613000441.GM137143@google.com> References: <8c0ead9cc598f9eb7d15bd4878108b545368dd6e.1560163748.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8c0ead9cc598f9eb7d15bd4878108b545368dd6e.1560163748.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 04:21:34PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > This patch introduces the min-frequency and max-frequency device > constraints, which will be used by the cpufreq core to begin with. > > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar Again, I'm mostly ignorant about QoS, in the context of the existing code (particularly looking at DEV_PM_QOS_RESUME_LATENCY) this looks reasonable to me. FWIW: Reviewed-by: Matthias Kaehlcke