On 11-01-19, 10:47, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 10:18 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.ku...@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > This commit introduces the frequency constraint infrastructure, which > > provides a generic interface for parts of the kernel to constraint the > > working frequency range of a device. > > > > The primary users of this are the cpufreq and devfreq frameworks. The > > cpufreq framework already implements such constraints with help of > > notifier chains (for thermal and other constraints) and some local code > > (for user-space constraints). The devfreq framework developers have also > > shown interest [1] in such a framework, which may use it at a later > > point of time. > > > > The idea here is to provide a generic interface and get rid of the > > notifier based mechanism. > > > > Only one constraint is added for now for the cpufreq framework and the > > rest will follow after this stuff is merged. > > > > Matthias Kaehlcke was involved in the preparation of the first draft of > > this work and so I have added him as Co-author to the first patch. > > Thanks Matthias. > > > > FWIW, This doesn't have anything to do with the boot-constraints > > framework [2] I was trying to upstream earlier :) > > This is quite a bit of code to review, so it will take some time.
@Rafael: You are going to provide some more feedback here, right ? > One immediate observation is that it seems to do quite a bit of what > is done in the PM QoS framework, so maybe there is an opportunity for > some consolidation in there. -- viresh
