On 28 May 2013 12:10, Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 27 May 2013 17:30, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: <manually added by viresh> >> On Monday, May 27, 2013 06:54:49 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: >> > On 27 May 2013 17:30, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> 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. Problem is in breaking existing cpufreq userspace for this driver. Is this allowed? > 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? We can use: get_governor_parent_kobj() to get the best location for boost. But I had some other issues in mind: - boost is governor dependent.. i.e. It is only required for ondemand governor (And LAB if it makes it to mainline :) ).. Other governors doesn't need it. So, it would be better to add it in governor's directory. - This will break existing users of acpi-cpufreq driver. @Rafael: Please suggest what to do here. -- 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
