Re: [PATCH RFC 3/9] PM / devfreq: Add cpu based scaling support to passive_governor

2019-05-27 Thread Chanwoo Choi
Hi Sibi, On 19. 5. 27. 오후 5:23, Sibi Sankar wrote: > Hey Chanwoo, > > Thanks a lot for reviewing the patch. Like I > had indicated earlier we decided to go with > a simpler approach instead on qualcomm SoCs. > I am happy to re-spin this patch with your > comments addressed if we do find other

Re: [PATCH RFC 3/9] PM / devfreq: Add cpu based scaling support to passive_governor

2019-05-27 Thread Sibi Sankar
Hey Chanwoo, Thanks a lot for reviewing the patch. Like I had indicated earlier we decided to go with a simpler approach instead on qualcomm SoCs. I am happy to re-spin this patch with your comments addressed if we do find other users for this feature. On 2019-04-12 13:09, Chanwoo Choi wrote:

Re: [PATCH RFC 3/9] PM / devfreq: Add cpu based scaling support to passive_governor

2019-04-12 Thread Chanwoo Choi
Hi, I agree this approach absolutely. Just I add some comments. Please check it. On 19. 3. 29. 오전 12:28, Sibi Sankar wrote: > From: Saravana Kannan > > Many CPU architectures have caches that can scale independent of the > CPUs. Frequency scaling of the caches is necessary to make sure the

[PATCH RFC 3/9] PM / devfreq: Add cpu based scaling support to passive_governor

2019-03-28 Thread Sibi Sankar
From: Saravana Kannan Many CPU architectures have caches that can scale independent of the CPUs. Frequency scaling of the caches is necessary to make sure the cache is not a performance bottleneck that leads to poor performance and power. The same idea applies for RAM/DDR. To achieve this, this