From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752761AbbHCDNb (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Aug 2015 23:13:31 -0400 Received: from mail-pa0-f46.google.com ([209.85.220.46]:34517 "EHLO mail-pa0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752531AbbHCDN3 (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Aug 2015 23:13:29 -0400 Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 08:43:25 +0530 From: Viresh Kumar To: Radivoje Jovanovic , "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Punit Agrawal , LKML , Linux PM , Zhang Rui , Eduardo Valentin , Radivoje Jovanovic Subject: Re: [PATCH] thermal/cpu_cooling: remove local cooling state variable Message-ID: <20150803031325.GU899@linux> References: <1437516835-198750-1-git-send-email-radivoje.jovanovic@linux.intel.com> <9hhegjxbmqz.fsf@e105922-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20150724100905.7e2e53f4@radivoje-desk2> <9hhoaiuap3m.fsf@e105922-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20150730080541.GD31351@linux> <20150730132130.3c957267@radivoje-desk2> <20150731031841.GH17794@linux> <20150731083003.2f47ca5f@radivoje-desk2> <20150801113405.GL899@linux> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150801113405.GL899@linux> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 01-08-15, 17:04, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 31-07-15, 08:30, Radivoje Jovanovic wrote: > > I agree with you that this patch is trivial for the current > > implementation since the notifier, as it is currently, will enforce > > cpu_cooling policy change at every CPUFREQ_ADJUST which would cause > > problems in our current implementation. In our implementation there is > > a cpufreq driver that will also change policies during CPUFREQ_ADJUST, > > once the request comes from the underlying FW so there would be a fight > > who gets there first since cpu_cooling will change the policy in > > CPUFREQ_ADJUST notifier_chain and the driver would do the same thing. Okay, I had a detailed look this morning. cpufreq-notifier is designed this way that policy->max can be updated by drivers.. So, that's fine. Now coming to your problem. So, there are two users: fw and thermal, which can affect policy->max. Now, both of them need to respect the limits set by others and only decrease policy->max from the notifier if it doesn't suit them. I think it should work pretty well, unless you know you have triggered a corner case somewhere, that I am not able to imagine. Please let me know in case I am wrong. -- viresh