Hi Rafael, > On Monday, May 27, 2013 06:54:49 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: > > On 27 May 2013 17:30, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Well, this really looks like software turbo modes, so let's call > > > them "TURBO" instead of "OVERDRIVE" > > > > Yes, it looks better. > > > > > and I seem to remember having a switch for > > > disabling/enabling turbo modes already. > > > > This was added in intel_pstate driver and shows up in > > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/ directory.. > > > > But this feature belongs to a governor instance and so > > will be present inside governor directory.. > > > > Specially for big LITTLE we want it to be per policy > > specific. So may need to add a new one. > > I was talking about /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/boost that > appears to have been added by commit 615b730 (acpi-cpufreq: Add > support for disabling dynamic overclocking). > > That's in acpi-cpufreq, but since that setting seems to be generally > useful, it may be a good idea to move it to the core somehow. I think that Viresh wanted to add "boost" option to /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpuX/cpufreq/ to be able to control boost at separate cores (policies). The localization, which you have proposed: /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/boost implies, that boost is a global feature (enabled for all cores and for all available policies). Which approach shall be used then? > > Thanks, > Rafael > > -- Best regards, Lukasz Majewski Samsung R&D Poland (SRPOL) | Linux Platform Group -- 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
