[Adding Linaro lists in cc as there are few people here working on power/thermal stuff.] On 24 March 2014 15:30, Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 4 March 2014 15:57, Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I think, that "LAB" name is with us for some time, so it would be a > pity to discard it. It doesn't matter with Mainline how you do naming initially for your code :) We need to pick the right name now, and the decision should be made now (after discussions obviously) :) >> What about making it as simple as: >> - changing the ondemand governor only instead of adding a new governor > > My goal is to not touch the ondemand code. It has matured, so I would > like to leave it as it is. Because the boost feature is already part of CPUFreq core, I think its better if we enhance current governors to use it. So, I would like to make this part of existing governors. Not only ondemand but maybe conservative as well.. Also, I feel we maynot necessarily move this piece of code into cpufreq. All you are doing is thermal management here :) If we are sure we will not burn out our SoC (When many cores are idle), run at max freq (if there is enough load of course :)).. And if there are chances that we might burn our chip (when very few cores are idle), don't run on boost frequencies.. This is actually a 'cooling' device :) Think of it this way: CPUFreq will provide a range of frequency which SoC's can use. And then based on some conditions we may or may not want to run on these frequencies. @Zhang/Eduardo: Can we have your inputs here as well ? This may look hard but we need to design things in the best possible way for managing things better in future. Lets see what others have to say on this. -- 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
