On 28-02-24, 10:44, Sibi Sankar wrote: > In the existing code, per-policy flags doesn't have any impact i.e. > if cpufreq_driver boost is enabled and one or more of the per-policy > boost is disabled, the cpufreq driver will behave as if boost is > enabled. I see. Good catch. The first patch is fine, just explain the problem properly and mention that no one is checking the policy->boost_enabled field. It is never read. > I had to update the policy->boost_enabled value because we seem > to allow enabling cpufreq_driver.boost_enabled from the driver, but I > can drop that because it was just for book keeping. So with cpufreq_driver->boost_enabled at init time, policy's boost_enabled must be set too. Do that in the core during initialization of the policy instead. > I didn't want > to include redundant info from another mail thread that I referenced in > the cover letter, but will add more info in the re-spin. You don't have to, but you need to explain the exact problem in a bit more detail since it wasn't obvious here. -- viresh
