From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Viresh Kumar Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] cpufreq: Add boost frequency support in core Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 10:35:26 +0530 Message-ID: References: <1370502472-7249-1-git-send-email-l.majewski@samsung.com> <20130617155156.4c729b5a@amdc308.digital.local> <3258927.Qds4G9CTyG@vostro.rjw.lan> <20130618154456.56d99e18@amdc308.digital.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130618154456.56d99e18@amdc308.digital.local> Sender: cpufreq-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Lukasz Majewski Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , "cpufreq@vger.kernel.org" , Linux PM list , Vincent Guittot , Jonghwa Lee , Myungjoo Ham , linux-kernel , Lukasz Majewski , Andre Przywara , Daniel Lezcano , Kukjin Kim , Amit Daniel Kachhap List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On 18 June 2013 19:14, Lukasz Majewski wrote: > On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 15:26:16 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 12:12:13 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: >> > On 17 June 2013 19:21, Lukasz Majewski >> Well, that's why on x86 turbo is controlled by hardware that takes >> care of keeping things within the chip's thermal limits. > > And this is the reason why I don't want to overly change acpi-cpufreq.c > code. :-) We need to keep both hardware/software boost features at the same place in core, they may behave differently though. That's why I wanted you to do that. > I think that thermal subsystem shall be the second option to disable SW > boosting. > > The main control shall be done inside the cpufreq core. The idea to > disable boost when more than one core is active is rational. But then, it might not be enough. A single core can make your SoC very hot.