On 26 June 2013 08:11, Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 2013年06月26日 07:03, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 09:01:03 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: >>> On 25 June 2013 13:49, Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> Ok. From my opinion, the new attribute is an ABI and it's better to add >>>> descriptor under Document directory. The user can be easy to find how to >>>> use it. >>> >>> Hmm.. So maybe acpi-cpufreq file would be a good starting point. Then >>> it can have more details about the driver in future. >>> >>>> Please see the commit which add the code. Maybe, we should overwrite >>>> shared_cpu_map by sibling_cpus for this case? >>> >>> Not sure if changing shared_cpu_map has any other implications or not. >> >> Well, I wouldn't change it, then. Please add a blank line before and after your reply. It makes it more readable. > Ok. How about add new field "cpufreqdomain_cpus" in the struct > acpi_cpufreq_data and expose its value for new attribute. For normal > case, copy the shared_cpu_map to it for normal case. For AMD case, copy > sibling_cpus to it. This should work I guess. > Another choice, just keeping what my patch has done. Wait for the new > request since current patch can satisfy reporter and it's not clear > whether the patch is enough for AMD platform.(At last from my view). NAK. We must keep it as it was before my patch. -- 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
