From: mark gross <markgross@xxxxxxxxxxx> > On Fri, Jan 06, 2012 at 09:32:36PM +0200, Antti P Miettinen wrote: >> mark gross <markgross@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: [..] >> > You should only have a cpu throughput qos. I.e. FREQ_MIN. >> > FWIW in my patch I named it : PM_QOS_CPU_THROUGHPUT but, its just a >> > different name to your PM_QOS_CPU_FREQ_MIN name. >> >> I anticipated getting this comment :-) > > I'm glad. Say did we talk at plumbers last year? This is starting to > ring a bell. Sorry - no, I've never been to plumbers :-) > yes, there are a lot of interesting things one can do to attempt to > somewhat gracefully deal with some sort of power or thermal envelope > limitations. But, they are not PM_QoS. Well - I'd say level of energy efficiency could easily be called PM QoS, but taking the max out is easy enough. --Antti _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
