On Monday, March 20, 2017 08:51:56 AM Viresh Kumar wrote: > 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?
OK, it looks like I don't care as much as you do. :-) Send the patch with a changelog. Thanks, Rafael
