[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180529193236.GH168650@google.com>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 12:32:36 -0700
From: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>
To: MyungJoo Ham <myungjoo.ham@...sung.com>
Cc: Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>,
Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>,
Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/11] PM / devfreq: governors: Return device frequency
limits instead of user limits
On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 02:04:44PM +0900, MyungJoo Ham wrote:
> >The performance, powersave and simpleondemand governors can return
> >df->min/max_freq, which are the user defined frequency limits.
> >update_devfreq() already takes care of adjusting the target frequency
> >with the user limits if necessary, therefore we can return
> >df->scaling_min/max_freq instead, which is the min/max frequency
> >supported by the device at a given time (depending on the
> >enabled/disabled OPPs)
> >
> >Signed-off-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>
> >---
> > drivers/devfreq/governor_performance.c | 2 +-
> > drivers/devfreq/governor_powersave.c | 2 +-
> > drivers/devfreq/governor_simpleondemand.c | 6 +++---
> > 3 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
>
> Actually, even scaling_max_freq and scaling_min_freq are
> covered centerally at devfreq.c:update_devfreq();
>
> Wouldn't it be sufficient to return UINT_MAX for performance
> and return UINT_MIN (0) for powersave, if the purpose is to
> remove redundancy?
>
> In the same sense, we may return UINT_MAX for freq-increasing
> case for simpleondemand as well, because they are filtered
> centrally anyway.
>
> (This commit might be better merged to 4/11 in that case as well.)
I did this in the first variant of the patch (before sending it in a
series), but Chanwoo Choi objected:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10404893/
I also still think that returning a constant would be the cleanest
solution if we can agree on this. What do you think about
DEVFREQ_MIN/MAX_FREQ (0/UINT_MAX) to make things slightly clearer?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists