On 27 June 2013 15:18, Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 14:32:57 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > I thought about this idea, but at cpufreq_boost_trigger_state_sw() > I iterate through all available policies and call > cpufreq_frequency_table_cpuinfo()[*] on them. In this routine [*] I use > cpufreq_boost_enabled() [**] route to search for maximal (boost) > frequency. > The [**] reads boost_enabled flag, which shall be updated before. When > this search fails, then I restore the old value of boost_enabled. Ok. >> >> > + else >> >> > + ret = cpufreq_boost_trigger_state_sw(); >> >> then why not enable_boost_sw() here? that would be more >> relevant. > > Could you be more specific here? I meant rename cpufreq_boost_trigger_state_sw() to enable_boost_sw() :) -- 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
