On 01/20/2016 05:22 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > One comment here (which may be a bit off in which case please ignore it). > > You seem to be thinking that sched-freq needs to be a cpufreq governor > and thus be handled in the same way as ondemand, for example.
That's true, I hadn't really given much thought to the alternative you mention below. > > However, this doesn't have to be the case in principle. For example, > if we have a special driver callback specifically to work with sched-freq, > it may just use that callback and bypass (almost) all of the usual > cpufreq mechanics. This way you may avoid worrying about the governor > locking and related ugliness entirely. That sounds good but I'm worried about other consequences of taking cpufreq out of the loop. For example wouldn't we need a new way for something like thermal to set frequency limits? thanks, steve
