Re: sched-freq locking

[Steve Muckle]

On 01/20/2016 05:22 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> One comment here (which may be a bit off in which case please ignore it).
> 
> You seem to be thinking that sched-freq needs to be a cpufreq governor
> and thus be handled in the same way as ondemand, for example.

That's true, I hadn't really given much thought to the alternative you
mention below.

> 
> However, this doesn't have to be the case in principle.  For example,
> if we have a special driver callback specifically to work with sched-freq,
> it may just use that callback and bypass (almost) all of the usual
> cpufreq mechanics.  This way you may avoid worrying about the governor
> locking and related ugliness entirely.

That sounds good but I'm worried about other consequences of taking
cpufreq out of the loop. For example wouldn't we need a new way for
something like thermal to set frequency limits?

thanks,
steve