Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/2] RFC: CPU frequency max as PM QoS param

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 02:23:52PM +0200, Antti P Miettinen wrote:
 > "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxx> writes:
 > > On Tuesday, February 28, 2012, Antti P Miettinen wrote:
 > [..]
 > >> So what do other people think? Could we merge global CPU frequency
 > >> constraints for now?
 > >
 > > Not without an ACK from Dave (the cpufreq maintainer), that's for sure.
 > 
 > Dave - any comments about these?
 > 
 > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.cpufreq/7794
 > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.cpufreq/7797
 > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.cpufreq/7800

I really dislike how this is exposed to userspace.
How is a user to know whether scaling_max_freq or cpu_freq_max takes priority ?
Given the confusion we already have from users when the bios_limit enforces limits,
giving them two knobs to do the same thing seems like a bad idea to me.

I don't see what problem this is solving that you couldn't solve just by
setting scaling_max_freq.

	Dave

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Photo]     [Yosemite News]    [Yosemite Photos]    [Free Online Dating]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]

Add to Google Powered by Linux