On Wednesday, February 04, 2015 06:38:39 PM Ashwin Chaugule wrote: > On 4 February 2015 at 18:04, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wednesday, February 04, 2015 05:06:26 PM Ashwin Chaugule wrote: > >> > I have one more concern about this driver. Namely, what benefit is there to > >> > people like Cristian from it at all? > >> > >> Its of use only if they have a PCC client (MPST, CPPC, RAS) driver. > >> Looks like PCC was explicitly enabled in this kernel. > >> > >> config PCC > >> bool "Platform Communication Channel Driver" > >> depends on ACPI > > > > Can we make it depend on the clients instead and be set automatically > > when at least one of the clients is enabled? > > > > Otherwise distros will have a problem with deciding whether or not they > > should enable this driver and most of them will end up enabling it. > > I see your point, but I'm not aware of any upstreamed client as of > yet. There might be folks using this driver internally though with > other clients. In such a case, is there a way to keep PCC disabled > until a client (e.g. CPPC) is upstreamed? Make it depend on EXPERT or something like that until the first client is added and then make it depend on that client. :-) > Alternately, is it that bad to keep it the way it is, given that the > driver wont do anything unless PCCT is detected in firmware and a PCC > client explicitly uses its API? Well, is it really useful this way? -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
