On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 03:12:33AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> The most important change from the previous version is that the >> ->fast_switch() callback takes an additional "relation" argument >> and now the governor can use it to choose a selection method. > >> +unsigned int acpi_cpufreq_fast_switch(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, >> + unsigned int target_freq, >> + unsigned int relation) > > Would it make sense to replace the {target_freq, relation} pair with > something like the CPPC {min_freq, max_freq} pair?
Yes, it would in general, but since I use __cpufreq_driver_target() in the "slow driver" case, that would need to be reworked too for consistency. So I'd prefer to do that later. > Then you could use the closest frequency to max provided it is larger > than min. > > This communicates more actual information in the same number of > parameters and would thereby allow for a more flexible (better) > frequency selection. Agreed.
