"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 agree that more work is needed for e.g. per CPU constraints, user >> space interface and more complete thermal management. Actually for >> future I think the constraints could also become more general than just >> min/max "reduction operators". For e.g. core online status you might >> want union/intersection of bitmaps. Also, the more complete thermal >> management is related to load management in general (power budgeting for >> other reasons than just thermal). > > Then perhaps let's not merge "temporary" stuff and figure out how to > implement what we _really_ want. Well, I'd say "partial" instead of "temporary". I think frequency min and max are really needed but as discussed, they are hardly a complete solution for power management. --Antti -- 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
