On 01-08-15, 17:04, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 31-07-15, 08:30, Radivoje Jovanovic wrote:
> > I agree with you that this patch is trivial for the current > > implementation since the notifier, as it is currently, will enforce > > cpu_cooling policy change at every CPUFREQ_ADJUST which would cause > > problems in our current implementation. In our implementation there is > > a cpufreq driver that will also change policies during CPUFREQ_ADJUST, > > once the request comes from the underlying FW so there would be a fight > > who gets there first since cpu_cooling will change the policy in > > CPUFREQ_ADJUST notifier_chain and the driver would do the same thing. Okay, I had a detailed look this morning. cpufreq-notifier is designed this way that policy->max can be updated by drivers.. So, that's fine. Now coming to your problem. So, there are two users: fw and thermal, which can affect policy->max. Now, both of them need to respect the limits set by others and only decrease policy->max from the notifier if it doesn't suit them. I think it should work pretty well, unless you know you have triggered a corner case somewhere, that I am not able to imagine. Please let me know in case I am wrong. -- viresh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
