On 17 July 2013 13:06, Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Okay, there is some confusion.. I have raised a query on your v4 mail.. lets see what people have to say. -- 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
