On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 04:04:00PM +0100, Antti Miettinen wrote:

To the lists too..

On 02/27/2012 04:49 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:

quoted

mark gross [off-list ref] writes:

 >> Current QoS settings could be thought of as performance constraints
 >> too. It's just that they determine minimum performance. Adding
 >> constraints for maxium performance is not a big stretch in my mind.
 >
 > Its not a big stretch to me either. I just think its a bit of a hack
 > and there is a bigger more interesting issue getting overlooked.
 >
 > Lastly why not simply make cpufreq thermal aware and talk directly to
 > it if you even need too?

In fact, making a thermal framework "cooling device" that talks directly
to CPUfreq is already what's being done by the Linaro PMWG folks.

The problem is that CPUfreq only controls the CPU frequency.

There are other devices that could be scaled back to reduce heat as well
(DSP, and especially GPU), so having a more generic per-device
constraint interface that can cap the frequency for *any* scalable
device is a better framework IMO.

It just so happens that pm_qos is already a good per-device constraint
framework and can easily modified to cap performance as well as request
a minimum performance.

Kevin

ok I'll stop trying to block it.

I want to re-do the whole works anyway.  If this helps in the mean time
then go for it.

--mark