All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* New governor?
@ 2013-01-23 19:07 Jacob Shin
  2013-01-23 19:15 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Jacob Shin @ 2013-01-23 19:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Rafael J. Wysocki, cpufreq

Rafael, cpufreq list,

I was wondering ..

- Is hardware architecture specific governor acceptable in upstream?
  i.e. drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_amd_governor.c

If not ..

- Is it acceptable to patch ondemand and/or conservative governors to
  call into some hardware achitecture specific function that affects
  the governors's freqency change decisions? (of course it would only
  be avaiable on certain hardware and only kicks in if user wants it
  to)

Basically, we have some AMD specific processor registers that tell us
information that could help in making frequency change decisions for
better power savings, and I was wondering what the proper way to go
about implementing something like this would be.

Thanks!

-Jacob


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

* Re: New governor?
  2013-01-23 19:07 New governor? Jacob Shin
@ 2013-01-23 19:15 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
  2013-01-23 20:42   ` David C Niemi
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Rafael J. Wysocki @ 2013-01-23 19:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jacob Shin; +Cc: cpufreq

On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 01:07:12 PM Jacob Shin wrote:
> Rafael, cpufreq list,
> 
> I was wondering ..
> 
> - Is hardware architecture specific governor acceptable in upstream?
>   i.e. drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_amd_governor.c

It generally is, although the details of implementation matter too.

Thanks,
Rafael


-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

* Re: New governor?
  2013-01-23 19:15 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
@ 2013-01-23 20:42   ` David C Niemi
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: David C Niemi @ 2013-01-23 20:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
  Cc: Jacob Shin, cpufreq

On 01/23/13 14:15, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 01:07:12 PM Jacob Shin wrote:
>> Rafael, cpufreq list,
>>
>> I was wondering ..
>>
>> - Is hardware architecture specific governor acceptable in upstream?
>>   i.e. drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_amd_governor.c
> It generally is, although the details of implementation matter too.
>
> Thanks,
> Rafael
>
>
Intel has also been talking about hardware-specific driver/governor bundles.  For now, I'd say go ahead, try to make it backwards compatible if that makes sense, and regard it as experimental.  In the long run we will need to generalize what it is doing so we can once again have a higher-level, hardware-independent configuration API over the hardware-specific governors.  Linux Distributions aren't going to want to use hardware-specific APIs to configure a machine, so they will likely ignore your (and Intel's) governor until there is a generic interface.

DCN

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2013-01-23 20:42 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2013-01-23 19:07 New governor? Jacob Shin
2013-01-23 19:15 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-01-23 20:42   ` David C Niemi

This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.