Dave Jones <davej@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 02:23:52PM +0200, Antti P Miettinen wrote: [..] > > 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 PM QoS handles multiple clients - the sysfs files are like global variables: there is no arbitration/consolidation for multiple clients. The sysfs files are a sort of override for system administrator whereas the PM QoS is the interface applications should use. --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
