[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1734682.b8u1f0b3XY@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 23:20:32 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Lan Tianyu <lantianyu1986@...il.com>
Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Lists linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
"cpufreq@...r.kernel.org" <cpufreq@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Query] CPUFreq: Why do we need policy->user_policy?
On Tuesday, August 27, 2013 10:04:52 PM Lan Tianyu wrote:
> 2013/8/27 Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>:
> > On 26 August 2013 20:53, Lan Tianyu <lantianyu1986@...il.com> wrote:
> >> So far as I know, it stores some user's config and cpufreq_update_policy()
> >> bases on the data in the struct to start a new policy. Cpu thermal driver
> >> (/driver/thermal/cpu_cooling.c)also will its value to update freq policy
> >> when receive a cpufreq policy adjust notification.
> >
> > Yeah, but how are these different from policy->min/max/policy/governor?
> > Why do we need to replicate this information?
>
> From my understanding.policy->min/max may be modified by some drivers
> but the user_policy only store user space config and should not be changed
> by other reason. :)
Yes, that was the original idea IIRC, so separate user settings from stuff that
may be changed internally by the kernel.
Thanks,
Rafael
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists