On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 18:31:19 +0530 Viresh Kumar viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx wrote, > 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 be 100% sure - we export boost only when supported (as proposed at v5). -- 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
