From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Prarit Bhargava Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] cpufreq governors and Intel P state driver compatibility Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2015 18:45:49 -0500 Message-ID: <56676BAD.4030707@redhat.com> References: <1449613890-10403-1-git-send-email-srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:41152 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751393AbbLHXpu (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Dec 2015 18:45:50 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1449613890-10403-1-git-send-email-srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: Srinivas Pandruvada , rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com, viresh.kumar@linaro.org Cc: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, trenn@suse.de On 12/08/2015 05:31 PM, Srinivas Pandruvada wrote: > Intel P State driver implements two policies, performance and powersave. > The powersave policy is similar to ondemand cpufreq governor when using > acpi-cpufreq. This causes lots of confusion among users. This results > in invalid comparison of performance when acpi-cpufreq and Intel P state > performance is compared. > > The reason Intel P state called powersave when it actually implemented > ondemand style P State selection, because the cpufreq core only allows > two generic policies "performance and powersave" for drivers which has > setpolicy() interface. All drivers using this interface are forced to > support these two policies. > > This patchset adds feature to have configurable generic policies and > allows ondemand as one of the policy. With this approach, Intel P state > now adds support for ondemand policy and power save policy both in > addition to performance. Srinivas, if I read the patchset correctly then this means that ondemand == powersave ? If so, is the intention to one day remove powersave altogether and switch to only ondemand & performance? P.