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, 18 Oct 2019 14:54:47 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Cc:     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>
Subject: Re: [RFT][PATCH 0/3] cpufreq / PM: QoS: Introduce frequency QoS and
 use it in cpufreq
Message-ID: <20191018092447.2utqazqfob65x4k2@vireshk-i7>
References: <2811202.iOFZ6YHztY@kreacher>
 <20191016142343.GB5330@bogus>
 <20191017095725.izchzl7enfylvpf3@vireshk-i7>
 <20191017095942.GF8978@bogus>
 <CAJZ5v0ixS8ZS93Fgj8XGUMGcLdAy+Fgwp5z3QirccNSiiwLtDA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20191018054433.tq2euue675xk4o63@vireshk-i7>
 <CAJZ5v0hpfvy5iELVRWFA3HS8NoAH0=py0cE+fLaUq2hDReCrnQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20191018082745.3zr6tc3yqmbydkrw@vireshk-i7>
 <CAJZ5v0gR45YNwqrc8JQ_2qQBnYrxPeCHTnvQtEELD8VpXJrxLA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAJZ5v0gR45YNwqrc8JQ_2qQBnYrxPeCHTnvQtEELD8VpXJrxLA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716-391-311a52
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 18-10-19, 10:30, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 10:27 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > On 18-10-19, 10:24, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > 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?
> >
> > I think cpufreq_verify_within_limits() gets called for sure from
> > within ->verify() for all platforms
> 
> That's why I mean by "in practice". :-)

Hmm, I am not sure if we should really add another min <= max check in
cpufreq_set_policy() as in practice it will never hit :)

-- 
viresh