lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Feb]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/3] drivers: Frequency constraint infrastructure
On 08-02-19, 11:35, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> At least some of the underlying mechanics seem to be very similar.
> You have priority lists, addition and removal of requests etc.
>
> Arguably, PM QoS may be regarded as a bit overly complicated, but
> maybe they both can use a common library underneath?

> As I said I like the idea of replacing cpufreq notifiers with
> something nicer, so if you can avoid doing almost-the-same-ting in two
> different frameworks, it would be fine by me.

Ok, will try to move to PM QoS. Thanks.

--
viresh

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-02-11 06:44    [W:0.071 / U:11.540 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site