On Thursday, November 28, 2013 07:11:17 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 28 November 2013 18:39, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > acpi-cpufreq is one at least. > > > > Anyway, this isn't about ACPI or anything like that, but hardware. Generally > > speaking, on modern Intel hardware the processor itself chooses the frequency > > to run at and it may do that behind your back. Moreover, it can choose a > > frequency different from the one you asked for. And it won't choose one that > > it can't run at for that matter. :-) > > > > Overall, I don't believe that the problem you're trying to address is relevant > > for any non-exotic x86 hardware. > > Okay.. So wouldn't it be better that we add this special flag only when we > face a real problem? Otherwise this flag might stay unused for long time > and then we might end up removing it.. > > >> > So there should be a flag for > >> > drivers indicating whether or not frequencies (or operation points in > >> > general) are directly testable and the check should only be done for > >> > the drivers with the flag set. > >> > >> Probably a flag with properties exactly opposite to what you mentioned, > >> so that we don't need to modify most of the drivers.. > > > > That would work too if you prefer it. > > In case we need this flag, what should we name it? > ALLOW_UNKNOWN_FREQ ?? SKIP_INITIAL_FREQUENCY_CHECK ? -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- 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
