On 17 June 2013 15:28, Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Yes. But I don't want to hardcode anything. Especially starting CPU > number. There is nothing wrong with it. for_each_online_cpu() is good enough on these cases. >> > How one can control the boost? I'm now (on my setup) using thermal >> > subsystem. I set proper trip points and when one of them is met, >> > then boost is disabled. Moreover the thermal governor (stepwise) >> > also reduces frequency. >> > >> > It works stable with v3.10 (with 3.8 there were some bugs - now they >> > are fixed). >> > >> > >> > The core acpi-cpufreq.c code hadn't been changed by me, so I assume >> > that it will work as before. >> >> That should adapt your patch in your patchset. ?? >> From sysfs?? I thought we are going to have some automatic control >> of this stuff from inside kernel. > > From sysfs I just enable the boost. I do not order from userpace the > cpufreq to run with a particular (boosted) frequency. > > When I enable boost - I ask (politely) the cpufreq core to reevaluate > policies and when applicable increase policy->max. > > Then governor can use this new frequencies for normal operation. So, with your current patchset in, ondemand or conservative governors will start using boost frequencies. Which might burn your chip. -- 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
