On 26 July 2013 16:51, Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 26 Jul 2013 15:54:56 +0530 Viresh Kumar wrote, >> On 25 July 2013 22:03, Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > +config CPU_FREQ_BOOST_SW >> > + bool >> >> Invisible is fine but this must be disabled by default and must >> depend on thermal, rather than moving dependency on platform's >> config. > > The CPU_FREQ_BOOST_SW [1] is a generic flag (invisible). > > I will add "default n" to it. Leave it.. We don't need it now.. that's how these kind of config options are defined as they are disabled by default. > Depending only on [3], results at situation where SW BOOST can be > enabled at x86 or ARM target with only generic THERMAL support (which > doesn't protect from overheating). I had a similar concern.. Currently also we aren't stopping anybody to enable boost. By selecting thermal from CPU_FREQ_BOOST_SW, atleast we are communicating this very well to developers that they need something else as well. And currently we only have thermal as a source for telling when to block boost but it can be something else too.. I never said, don't use EXYNOS_THERMAL, its good to have a dependency on it in the Exynos specific config for boost, but I wanted normal sw boost also to depend on thermal.. -- 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
