Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
To:     Benjamin Gaignard <benjamin.gaignard@st.com>
Cc:     viresh.kumar@linaro.org, hugues.fruchet@st.com, mchehab@kernel.org,
        mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com, alexandre.torgue@st.com, pavel@ucw.cz,
        len.brown@intel.com, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-media@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/3] Introduce cpufreq minimum load QoS
Date:   Wed, 29 Apr 2020 17:50:04 +0200
Message-ID: <7657495.QyJl4BcWH5@kreacher>
In-Reply-To: <20200424114058.21199-1-benjamin.gaignard@st.com>
References: <20200424114058.21199-1-benjamin.gaignard@st.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Friday, April 24, 2020 1:40:55 PM CEST Benjamin Gaignard wrote:
> When start streaming from the sensor the CPU load could remain very low 
> because almost all the capture pipeline is done in hardware (i.e. without 
> using the CPU) and let believe to cpufreq governor that it could use lower 
> frequencies. If the governor decides to use a too low frequency that 
> becomes a problem when we need to acknowledge the interrupt during the 
> blanking time.
> The delay to ack the interrupt and perform all the other actions before
> the next frame is very short and doesn't allow to the cpufreq governor to
> provide the required burst of power. That led to drop the half of the frames.
> 
> To avoid this problem, DCMI driver informs the cpufreq governors by adding
> a cpufreq minimum load QoS resquest.

This seems to be addressing a use case that can be addressed with the help of
utilization clamps with less power overhead.

Thanks!