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

[mark gross <markgross@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 04:04:00PM +0100, Antti Miettinen wrote:
> To the lists too..
> 
> On 02/27/2012 04:49 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> > mark gross <markgross@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >
> >  >> Current QoS settings could be thought of as performance constraints
> >  >> too. It's just that they determine minimum performance. Adding
> >  >> constraints for maxium performance is not a big stretch in my mind.
> >  >
> >  > Its not a big stretch to me either. I just think its a bit of a hack
> >  > and there is a bigger more interesting issue getting overlooked.
> >  >
> >  > Lastly why not simply make cpufreq thermal aware and talk directly to
> >  > it if you even need too?
> >
> > In fact, making a thermal framework "cooling device" that talks directly
> > to CPUfreq is already what's being done by the Linaro PMWG folks.
> >
> > The problem is that CPUfreq only controls the CPU frequency.
> >
> > There are other devices that could be scaled back to reduce heat as well
> > (DSP, and especially GPU), so having a more generic per-device
> > constraint interface that can cap the frequency for *any* scalable
> > device is a better framework IMO.
> >
> > It just so happens that pm_qos is already a good per-device constraint
> > framework and can easily modified to cap performance as well as request
> > a minimum performance.
> >
> > Kevin

ok I'll stop trying to block it.

I want to re-do the whole works anyway.  If this helps in the mean time
then go for it.

--mark

_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm