[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0hpfvy5iELVRWFA3HS8NoAH0=py0cE+fLaUq2hDReCrnQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 10:24:56 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFT][PATCH 0/3] cpufreq / PM: QoS: Introduce frequency QoS and
use it in cpufreq
On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 7:44 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> On 17-10-19, 18:34, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > [BTW, Viresh, it looks like cpufreq_set_policy() should still ensure
> > that the new min is less than the new max, because the QoS doesn't do
> > that.]
>
> The ->verify() callback does that for us I believe.
It does in practice AFAICS, but in theory it may assume the right
ordering between the min and the max and just test the boundaries, may
it not?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists