On 20 June 2013 03:55, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 10:31:02 PM Lukasz Majewski wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 10:48:53 -0700
>> Dirk Brandewie <dirk.brandewie@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> > On 06/19/2013 10:12 AM, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
>> > > @@ -1936,6 +2019,16 @@ int cpufreq_register_driver(struct
>> > > + if (!cpufreq_driver->boost_supported)
>> > > + boost.attr.mode = 0444;
>> > > +
>> > > + ret = cpufreq_sysfs_create_file(&(boost.attr));
>> > > + if (ret) {
>> > > + pr_err("%s: cannot register global boost sysfs
>> > > file\n",
>> > > + __func__);
>> > > + goto err_null_driver;
>> > > + }
>> > > +
>> >
>> > I do not think the boost sysfs should be created at all if boost is
>> > not supported.
>>
>> This was my first thought. But unfortunately this "boost" attribute is
>> always exported at acpi-cpufreq.c and in my opinion is part of a
>> legacy API.
>>
>> I totally agree with the idea of exporting boost only when supported,
>> but I would like to know the community opinion about this (especially
>> Viresh and Rafael shall speak up).
>
> Simple: Export it only when supported.
Guys,
I got confused here. We originally decided to keep this feature as is
for acpi-cpufreq.
So, For acpi-cpufreq:
- when boost isn't supported: create sysfs boost with ro permissions
- when boost is supported: create sysfs boost with rw permissions
So, For others:
- create sysfs boost with rw permissions only when boost is supported
.
Do you want something else? or do you want to change behavior of
acpi-cpufreq driver? I don't why it was designed this way and what
applications use it.
--
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
