[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9aecd2cd-771e-58b8-6672-f133600b70b5@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2021 10:11:50 +0000
From: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
vireshk@...nel.org, rafael@...nel.org, daniel.lezcano@...aro.org,
Dietmar.Eggemann@....com, amitk@...nel.org, rui.zhang@...el.com,
cw00.choi@...sung.com, myungjoo.ham@...sung.com,
kyungmin.park@...sung.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/3] New thermal interface allowing IPA to get max
power
On 1/27/21 9:15 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 26-01-21, 10:39, Lukasz Luba wrote:
>> As it's a RFC, it still misses the cpufreq sysfs implementation, but would
>> be addressed if all agree.
>
> Not commenting on the whole stuff but if you ever need something for cpufreq, it
> is already there. Look for these.
>
> store_one(scaling_min_freq, min);
> store_one(scaling_max_freq, max);
>
> Hopefully they will work just fine.
>
So, can I assume you don't mind to plumb it into these two?
Yes, I know them and the tricky macro. I just wanted to avoid
one patch for this macro and one patch for cpufreq_cooling.c,
which would use it.
If you agree and Chanwoo agrees for the devfreq, and Daniel
for the new callback in cooling device, then I would continue
by adding missing patches for cpufreq-cooling part.
Regards,
Lukasz
Powered by blists - more mailing lists