On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 5:46 AM, Viresh Kumar [off-list ref] wrote:

On 26-10-16, 12:00, Kevin Hilman wrote:

quoted

Yes.  As I've suggested to qcom/linaro folks (off-list discussions), I

No one told me this story :)

quoted

think extending genpd to handle performance states is a logical
extension.  Otherwise, you will be (re)inventing something that looks an
awful lot like genpd anyways.

I completely agree. Runtime PM and genpd look to be the perfect
placeholder for such stuff. I actually tried to convince Ulf yesterday
on this and he wasn't sure if it will ever get accepted upstream and
that's when I started this thread :)

quoted

The other related framework is per-device PM QoS which could be used to
set constraints on specific devices, and the genpd governors would then
be responsible for looking at the constraints and changing states as
needed.

I am not sure if genpd governors are also background governors like
cpufreq, but we need to make sure that the voltage is raised after the
function requesting a change returns, so that the clk rate can be
increased then.

Well, as I've just written in a message to Kevin, there are reasons
why genpd may not be the best place for that.

Thanks,
Rafael