On 22-02-19, 11:44, Qais Yousef wrote:
> Hi Verish
>
> On 02/21/19 16:59, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > @@ -2239,6 +2314,8 @@ static int cpufreq_set_policy(struct cpufreq_policy
> > *policy,
> > struct cpufreq_policy *new_policy)
> > {
> > struct cpufreq_governor *old_gov;
> > + struct device *cpu_dev = get_cpu_device(policy->cpu);
> > + unsigned long min, max;
> > int ret;
> >
> > pr_debug("setting new policy for CPU %u: %u - %u kHz\n",
> > @@ -2253,11 +2330,23 @@ static int cpufreq_set_policy(struct cpufreq_policy
> > *policy,
> > if (new_policy->min > new_policy->max)
> > return -EINVAL;
> >
> > + min = dev_pm_qos_read_value(cpu_dev, DEV_PM_QOS_MIN_FREQUENCY);
> > + max = dev_pm_qos_read_value(cpu_dev, DEV_PM_QOS_MAX_FREQUENCY);
> > +
> > + if (min > new_policy->min)
> > + new_policy->min = min;
> > + if (max < new_policy->max)
> > + new_policy->max = max;
> > +
>
> Assuming for example min and max range from 1-10, and thermal throttles max to
> 5 using pm_qos to deal with temporary thermal pressure. But shortly after
> a driver thinks that max shouldn't be greater than 7 for one reason or
> another.
>
> What will happen after thermal pressure removes its constraint? Will we still
> remember the driver's request and apply it so max is set to 7 instead of 10?
Once everything comes via PM QoS, it will remember all the presently available
requests and choose a target min/max frequency based on that.
But even with this patchset, with half stuff done with PM QoS and half done with
cpufreq notifiers, it should still work that way only.
--
viresh
