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 -- 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
