[Adding Linaro lists in cc as there are few people here working on power/thermal stuff.]
On 24 March 2014 15:30, Lukasz Majewski l.majewski@samsung.com wrote:
On 4 March 2014 15:57, Lukasz Majewski l.majewski@samsung.com wrote:
I think, that "LAB" name is with us for some time, so it would be a pity to discard it.
It doesn't matter with Mainline how you do naming initially for your code :) We need to pick the right name now, and the decision should be made now (after discussions obviously) :)
What about making it as simple as:
- changing the ondemand governor only instead of adding a new governor
My goal is to not touch the ondemand code. It has matured, so I would like to leave it as it is.
Because the boost feature is already part of CPUFreq core, I think its better if we enhance current governors to use it. So, I would like to make this part of existing governors. Not only ondemand but maybe conservative as well..
Also, I feel we maynot necessarily move this piece of code into cpufreq. All you are doing is thermal management here :)
If we are sure we will not burn out our SoC (When many cores are idle), run at max freq (if there is enough load of course :))..
And if there are chances that we might burn our chip (when very few cores are idle), don't run on boost frequencies..
This is actually a 'cooling' device :)
Think of it this way: CPUFreq will provide a range of frequency which SoC's can use. And then based on some conditions we may or may not want to run on these frequencies.
@Zhang/Eduardo: Can we have your inputs here as well ?
This may look hard but we need to design things in the best possible way for managing things better in future. Lets see what others have to say on this.