From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1756129AbcCCU4n (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 3 Mar 2016 15:56:43 -0500
Received: from mail-lb0-f196.google.com ([209.85.217.196]:33831 "EHLO
	mail-lb0-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751256AbcCCU4m (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 3 Mar 2016 15:56:42 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20160303111655.GL6356@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <2495375.dFbdlAZmA6@vostro.rjw.lan>
	<26020775.9hJG2SHiH2@vostro.rjw.lan>
	<20160303111655.GL6356@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 21:56:40 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 0yyLfBN0NKkqRHtN9CygWmhJUiI
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0gftV8fR9XQuFKPf-v6FzyFV5onRvyE64mc5kPXUVQqmA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] cpufreq: Support for fast frequency switching
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Linux PM list <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>,
        Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@linaro.org>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 03:12:33AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> 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.
>
>> +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.

> Then you could use the closest frequency to max provided it is larger
> than min.
>
> This communicates more actual information in the same number of
> parameters and would thereby allow for a more flexible (better)
> frequency selection.

Agreed.