[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0gR45YNwqrc8JQ_2qQBnYrxPeCHTnvQtEELD8VpXJrxLA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 10:30:36 +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 10:27 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> On 18-10-19, 10:24, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > 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?
>
> I think cpufreq_verify_within_limits() gets called for sure from
> within ->verify() for all platforms
That's why I mean by "in practice". :-)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists