On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 10:52:18 +0530 Viresh Kumar viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx wrote, > On 16 July 2013 17:03, Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > As fair as I've understood our previous discussion (at [*]) we have > > agreed about this. We only export boost attribute when it is > > supported by cpufreq_driver. Rafael was very clear about exporting > > boost attribute: > > > > "Simple: Export it only when supported." > > > > [*]: Re: [PATCH v4 2/7] cpufreq: Add boost frequency support in core > > I don't want to search in the Archives but I am sure what we decided > earlier. At v4 there was the old acpi-cpufreq.c behaviour preserved (with always exporting boost - when not supported ro, when supported rw). Due to Rafael and Dirk comments it has been rewritten at v5: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1511831/match=patch+v4+2+7+cpufreq+add+boost+frequency+support+core > > Rafael Said: > "Simple: Export it only when supported." [*] > > AND > > "Don't change behavior of acpi-cpufreq driver" [**] > > If you see acpi-cpufreq driver carefully, it always creates "boost" > sysfs entry. If its not supported then it creates a read only entry. For me those two statements [*] and [**] contradict: At v5: 1. ARM - export "boost" only when supported (rw) 2. x86 - export boost only when x86 supports it (as rw). When x86 doesn't support HW boost - DO NOT export it at all. At v4: 1. ARM - export "boost" only when supported (rw) 2. x86 - always export boost - no matter if supported or not. If not supported, then export it as ro only. > > So, please preserve that. -- 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
