On 17 July 2013 17:01, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > First off, I'm not sure how many applications actually use it and I think, > if any, they should be able cope with the attribute not being present. > > Of course, if it turns out that yes, there are applications using it and no, > they cannot cope with the missing attribute, we'll need to address this. > That said such applications wouldn't work with earlier kernels in which that > attribute wasn't present at all, so I suppose this is really unlikely. > > So, do whichever makes more sense to you: Design things to preserve the old > behavior (which is sightly confusing) or design them to expose the attribute > if the feature is actually supported and be prepared to address the (unlikely) > case when some hypothetical applications break because of that. Okay. Its better to keep it the way Lukasz designed it in his last patchset. -- 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
