On Thu, Dec 12, 2024 at 12:21:00PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 06-12-24, 13:55, Beata Michalska wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > index 04fc786dd2c0..70df2a24437b 100644
> > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > @@ -747,9 +747,14 @@ show_one(cpuinfo_transition_latency, cpuinfo.transition_latency);
> > show_one(scaling_min_freq, min);
> > show_one(scaling_max_freq, max);
> >
> > -__weak unsigned int arch_freq_get_on_cpu(int cpu)
> > +__weak int arch_freq_get_on_cpu(int cpu)
> > {
> > - return 0;
> > + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>
> I did suggest not doing this as it may not be acceptable.
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAKohpokFUpQyHYO017kOn-Jbt0CFZ1GuxoG3N-fenWJ_poW=4Q@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
>
My bad as I must have misinterpreted that message. Although I am not entirely
sure why this might be unacceptable as it is not such uncommon approach to use
signed int space to cover both: expected positive value as well as potential
error code case failure.
Enabling the new attribute for all is an option, tough not entirely compelling
one as exposing a feature that is known not to be supported seems bit
counterintuitive. On the other hand using cpufreq driver flags won't help much
as the support for the new attrib is platform-specific, not driver-specific.
---
BR
Beata
> --
> viresh
