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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <2811202.iOFZ6YHztY@kreacher> <20191016142343.GB5330@bogus>
 <20191017095725.izchzl7enfylvpf3@vireshk-i7> <20191017095942.GF8978@bogus>
 <CAJZ5v0ixS8ZS93Fgj8XGUMGcLdAy+Fgwp5z3QirccNSiiwLtDA@mail.gmail.com> <20191018054433.tq2euue675xk4o63@vireshk-i7>
In-Reply-To: <20191018054433.tq2euue675xk4o63@vireshk-i7>
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Date:   Fri, 18 Oct 2019 10:24:56 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0hpfvy5iELVRWFA3HS8NoAH0=py0cE+fLaUq2hDReCrnQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFT][PATCH 0/3] cpufreq / PM: QoS: Introduce frequency QoS and
 use it in cpufreq
To:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 7:44 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On 17-10-19, 18:34, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > [BTW, Viresh, it looks like cpufreq_set_policy() should still ensure
> > that the new min is less than the new max, because the QoS doesn't do
> > that.]
>
> The ->verify() callback does that for us I believe.

It does in practice AFAICS, but in theory it may assume the right
ordering between the min and the max and just test the boundaries, may
it not?