On 2013年06月26日 14:54, Viresh Kumar wrote: > 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. Thanks for reminder. I will notice this. > >> 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. Ok. I will follow this one. > >> 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. > OK. Please ignore this one. -- Best regards Tianyu Lan -- 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
