On 四, 2012-05-31 at 04:58 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:54:51AM +0800, Zhang Rui wrote: > > On 三, 2012-05-30 at 13:50 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > The existing algorithm provides a generic mechanism for > > > balancing performance and thermal output, with the only requirement > > > being that the platform provide constants that represent the heating and > > > cooling properties of the system. > > > > > I'm not sure if this could work on their platforms. So I'm just looking > > for an easier way to handle this, i.e. make generic thermal layer > > simple, and provide the flexibility for platform drivers to do their own > > tricks. > > If it's not possible for a platform to use the existing generic approach > then we should certainly provide a way for them to handle that, but > first I'd like to see evidence that it's impossible for them to use the > existing generic approach. This kind of conversation is better with real > world examples :) Agreed. Amit, do you have any update on this? :) > > > > > G4. Multiple passive trip points > > > > > > It would be good to have an explanation of the use case here. If it's > > > acceptable for the device to be at the lower passive trip point, why are > > > we slowing it down at all? > > > > > acceptable does not equal comfortable? > > Say, I'd like to use the computer at 30C skin temperature. > > I'm okay with the temperature at 50C, but it would be nice if it can be > > lower, even if the system would be slower, but not too slow (T-state). > > If the temperature is higher than 60, it is not usable for me, I'll wait > > for a while, the system can do everything they want do cool the system > > down (but hibernate/shutdown would be not a good idea at this time > > because it is hot enough for some hardware damage). > > Ok, that seems reasonable. > Great! thanks, rui _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
