Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 30 Jan 2019 10:55:11 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To:     Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@gmail.com>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        Rafael Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Viresh Kumar <vireshk@kernel.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] drivers: Frequency constraint infrastructure
Message-ID: <20190130052511.5k6mhwu45vzpz6il@vireshk-i7>
References: <cover.1547197612.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
 <CAJZ5v0gs3FnCgFS8rg7vwCeATJKfR+mfMVrpkTbM237XVhpDJQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190117131631.GA14385@localhost.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190117131631.GA14385@localhost.localdomain>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180323-120-3dd1ac
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 17-01-19, 14:16, Juri Lelli wrote:
> I was also wondering how this new framework is dealing with
> constraints/request imposed/generated by the scheduler and related
> interfaces (thinking about schedutil and Patrick's util_clamp).

I am not very sure about what constraints are imposed by schedutil or
util-clamp stuff that may not work well with this stuff.

As you are already aware of it, this series isn't doing anything new
as we already have thermal/user constraints available in kernel. I am
just trying to implement a better way to present those to the cpufreq
core.

-- 
viresh