On 17-03-17, 18:40, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 5:43 PM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.ku...@linaro.org> wrote: > > On 17 March 2017 at 22:01, Rafael J. Wysocki <raf...@kernel.org> wrote: > > > >> IMO if we are not going to restore the governor, we also should not > >> restore the limits as those things are related. Now, the governor can > >> be unloaded while the CPU is offline. > > > > I thought about it earlier but then governor and policy min/max > > looked independent to me. Why do you think they are related? > > They are parts of one set of settings. > > If the governor is not restored, the policy starts with the default > one, so why would it not start with the default limits then?
Do we reset the limits when we change governor's normally? No. Then why should we consider suspend/resume special in that sense? These are completely different and independent settings which user has done and we don't really need to relate them. > My opinion is that either we restore everything the way it was, or we > start afresh entirely. What about fields like: policy->user_policy.*? They aren't reset for existing policies if the last governor isn't found. And there are drivers which call cpufreq_update_policy(), and that would mean that the CPU will come back to user defined policies before system suspended. And that kind of defeats whatever you were trying to do in this patch. Isn't it? -- viresh
