From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Antti P Miettinen Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] RFC: CPU frequency min/max as PM QoS params Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 08:06:38 +0200 Message-ID: <87vcnp93bl.fsf@amiettinen-lnx.nvidia.com> References: <1326697201-32406-1-git-send-email-amiettinen@nvidia.com> <201201192315.22590.rjw@sisk.pl> <87d3acf2jh.fsf@amiettinen-lnx.nvidia.com> <201201230043.46436.rjw@sisk.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org Cc: cpufreq@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org "Rafael J. Wysocki" writes: > On Sunday, January 22, 2012, Antti P Miettinen wrote: [..] >> Seems that the device specific constraints are not yet in use in >> 3.3-rc1, or am I not looking hard enough? > > They are in use through generic PM domains (drivers/base/power/domain*.c > and friends) and ARM/shmobile uses those. > > Thanks, > Rafael Sorry for the delay - got pre-empted by other stuff. I took a look at the per device constraints. Do I understand it correctly that the idea is that there is only one constraint per device? If we want to make frequency and latency per CPU I guess we'd need separate constraints associated with the CPU device. Or do I misunderstand something? Or would global CPU frequency be more in line with global CPU latency after all? --Antti