On 2 April 2013 17:34, Thomas Renninger <trenn@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Friday, March 29, 2013 10:40:38 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Friday, March 29, 2013 07:56:39 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> > - printf(_(" CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: "));
>> > + printf(_(" All (Online & Offline) CPUs that run at the same hardware frequency: "));
> This one is not worth changing IMO, in the end it tells the user more or less the same and
> as this stuff is translated, I'd not change it.
Okay.
>> > - printf(_(" CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: "));
>> > + printf(_(" Online CPUs that run at the same hardware frequency: "));
>> > while (cpus->next) {
> I agree that this message is more developer than user oriented,
> but cpupower is more for the end-user. So this message is not perfect.
> From what I can see of current code with patch aa77a52764a92216b61a6c8079b5c01937c046cd
> all related_cpus users are gone and related-cpus does not have any meaning at all
> anymore?
No, that's wrong. We need to set policy->cpus correctly (with online +
offline cpus) and cpufreq core will take care of setting related_cpus
with everything
from policy->cpus and policy->cpus will be modified to keep only online cpus.
> I haven't gone through your latest changes, but will at least give them a test on
> a AMD K10 multi socket machine which iirc where using related_cpus.
> I try to catch up with latest cpufreq changes as well, but wow... no idea when this
> will happen.
:)
> For now I would just leave it (cpupower messages/manpage) as it is, there is
> nothing critical which must get fixed immediately.
Yes its not really critical but it must be fixed to reflect the right stuff.
--
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
