On Thursday, February 05, 2015 10:44:13 AM Ashwin Chaugule wrote: > Hi Rafael, > > On 4 February 2015 at 20:28, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. :-) > > Doesn't sound too bad. Hope that doesn't end up enabling unintended > options in the kernel which aren't exposed in kconfig. > FWIW, I think its better to make it depend on CPPC as part of the PCC > cleanup patch that I have going in the CPPC patchset. That's fine by me. > >> 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? > > Not really, but not particularly harmful either. :) Besides, it seems > like for the sake of genericness, distros enable several options that > are irrelevant to a platform. In this case, PCC would be harmlessly > enabled only until CPPC makes its way upstream (which is actively > being worked on anyway). For one, I don't like it being easy to enable by mistake on x86 where it is not useful at all (and won't be at least for some time). -- 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
