On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 10:58:40 +0530 Viresh Kumar viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx wrote, > On 16 July 2013 17:36, Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 15:11:54 +0530 Viresh Kumar > > viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx wrote, > >> On 4 July 2013 14:20, Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@xxxxxxxxxxx> > >> wrote: > > >> > +void cpufreq_set_boost_enabled(int state) > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ [*] > > > >> > >> Maybe cpufreq_block_boost? As suggested by Rafael. > > > > What do you mean by cpufreq_block_boost()? This name would reverse > > the logic. > > > > Function [*] is used to change boost_enabled static flag (defined at > > cpufreq.c file) state according to acpi-cpufreq.c boost support > > status. > > I misread it again :( > > So, what about adding another field in struct cpufreq_driver: > boost_enabled? And get rid of the global boost_enabled we have used? > Similar to how boost_supported is used, then we don't need this > routine. Ok, I will implement this. -- Best regards, Lukasz Majewski Samsung R&D Institute Poland (SRPOL) | Linux Platform Group -- 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
