On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx> wrote: > I still prefer this as debugfs and not as sysfs ABI. We already have > issues with multiple interfaces for the same thing. E.g. cpufreq on x86. > I don't want this to end up in the same way after few years. CPUIdle > sysfs should be only sysfs ABI for these, adding an alternative is > inviting troubles for future especially if some user-space starts using > it and we will be stuck with that. Moreover with more h/w controlled > idle we may not provide accurate data sooner. > > Sorry for the noise, I will shup up now ;). Since this may be last > chance to make some noise, I am trying it. I completely understand that > this is just my opinion and am fine if others thinks it's good to make > this sysfs ABI. Unfortunately, I think Prashanth really needs a specific requirement rather than opinions. This patch has been languishing for over a month, and we still have no idea whether it will make 4.15 or if Prashanth is *required* to make any more changes. -- Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project. -- 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
