On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 13:29:26 +0530 Viresh Kumar viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx wrote, > 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. Ok. -- 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
