[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190208090824.4dxtux4vcltkq7go@vireshk-i7>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2019 14:38:24 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...il.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Viresh Kumar <vireshk@...nel.org>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] drivers: Frequency constraint infrastructure
On 30-01-19, 10:55, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 17-01-19, 14:16, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > I was also wondering how this new framework is dealing with
> > constraints/request imposed/generated by the scheduler and related
> > interfaces (thinking about schedutil and Patrick's util_clamp).
>
> I am not very sure about what constraints are imposed by schedutil or
> util-clamp stuff that may not work well with this stuff.
>
> As you are already aware of it, this series isn't doing anything new
> as we already have thermal/user constraints available in kernel. I am
> just trying to implement a better way to present those to the cpufreq
> core.
@Juri: Ping.
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists