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:   Fri, 8 Feb 2019 14:39:12 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Cc:     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: <20190208090912.43aao5kny42iirum@vireshk-i7>
References: <cover.1547197612.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
 <CAJZ5v0gs3FnCgFS8rg7vwCeATJKfR+mfMVrpkTbM237XVhpDJQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAJZ5v0gs3FnCgFS8rg7vwCeATJKfR+mfMVrpkTbM237XVhpDJQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180323-120-3dd1ac
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 11-01-19, 10:47, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 10:18 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > This commit introduces the frequency constraint infrastructure, which
> > provides a generic interface for parts of the kernel to constraint the
> > working frequency range of a device.
> >
> > The primary users of this are the cpufreq and devfreq frameworks. The
> > cpufreq framework already implements such constraints with help of
> > notifier chains (for thermal and other constraints) and some local code
> > (for user-space constraints). The devfreq framework developers have also
> > shown interest [1] in such a framework, which may use it at a later
> > point of time.
> >
> > The idea here is to provide a generic interface and get rid of the
> > notifier based mechanism.
> >
> > Only one constraint is added for now for the cpufreq framework and the
> > rest will follow after this stuff is merged.
> >
> > Matthias Kaehlcke was involved in the preparation of the first draft of
> > this work and so I have added him as Co-author to the first patch.
> > Thanks Matthias.
> >
> > FWIW, This doesn't have anything to do with the boot-constraints
> > framework [2] I was trying to upstream earlier :)
> 
> This is quite a bit of code to review, so it will take some time.

@Rafael: You are going to provide some more feedback here, right ?

> One immediate observation is that it seems to do quite a bit of what
> is done in the PM QoS framework, so maybe there is an opportunity for
> some consolidation in there.

-- 
viresh