On 10/10/12 14:26, Viresh Kumar wrote:
[...]
I couldn't understand the difference b/w h/w and s/w coordination. What
do we mean by them here.
Following patch added related related_cpu stuff:
commit e8628dd06d66f2e3965ec9742029b401d63434f1
Author: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri Apr 18 13:31:12 2008 -0700
[CPUFREQ] expose cpufreq coordination requirements regardless of
coordination mechanism
Currently, affected_cpus shows which CPUs need to have their frequency
coordinated in software. When hardware coordination is in use, the contents
of this file appear the same as when no coordination is required. This can
lead to some confusion among user-space programs, for example, that do not
know that extra coordination is required to force a CPU core to a particular
speed to control power consumption.
To fix this, create a "related_cpus" attribute that always displays the
coordination map regardless of whatever coordination strategy the cpufreq
driver uses (sw or hw). If the cpufreq driver does not provide a
value, fall
back to policy->cpus.
Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Dave Jones <davej@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
Here is my understanding on this patch. This change is closely related
to ACPI cpufreq driver(used mostly on Intel cores). This change was
introduced to keep track of the related cpus as returned by ACPI
firmware along with affected cpus as imposed by SW. I don't understand
the exact difference in Intel cores.
I believe it's just for tracking and not used much in the driver.
Regards,
Sudeep
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
