On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 09:56:40PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Peter Zijlstra [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 03:12:33AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

quoted

The most important change from the previous version is that the
->fast_switch() callback takes an additional "relation" argument
and now the governor can use it to choose a selection method.

quoted

+unsigned int acpi_cpufreq_fast_switch(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
+                                   unsigned int target_freq,
+                                   unsigned int relation)

Would it make sense to replace the {target_freq, relation} pair with
something like the CPPC {min_freq, max_freq} pair?

Yes, it would in general, but since I use __cpufreq_driver_target() in
the "slow driver" case, that would need to be reworked too for
consistency.  So I'd prefer to do that later.

OK, fair enough.