On 17-12-24, 21:10, Beata Michalska wrote: > On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 09:57:26AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > On 16-12-24, 23:15, Beata Michalska wrote: > > > 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. > > > > This part is fine. The problem is with handling frequency here. Signed int can > > capture up to 2 GHz of freq, where as unsigned int can capture up to 4 GHz and > > so we would really like to keep it at 4 GHz.. > Right, though the arch_freq_get_on_cpu operates on kHz values. Hmm.. Missed that. If you still want to keep it, make that change in a separate patch and the new sysfs entry in a different one, so related people can easily review. -- viresh
