On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 04:23:55PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 21-01-25, 08:44, Beata Michalska wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > index 6f45684483c4..b2a8efa83c98 100644
> > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > @@ -733,12 +733,20 @@ __weak int arch_freq_get_on_cpu(int cpu)
> > return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > }
> >
> > static ssize_t show_scaling_cur_freq(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, char *buf)
> > {
> > ssize_t ret;
> > int freq;
> >
> > - freq = arch_freq_get_on_cpu(policy->cpu);
> > + freq = IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CPUFREQ_ARCH_CUR_FREQ)
> > + ? arch_freq_get_on_cpu(policy->cpu)
> > + : 0;
> > +
> > if (freq > 0)
> > ret = sysfs_emit(buf, "%u\n", freq);
> > else if (cpufreq_driver->setpolicy && cpufreq_driver->get)
>
> Maybe this should be a separate commit ? And also I am not very happy
Initially it was supposed to be one, but then the rest of the series justifies
the changes so it made sense to send those in one go.
> with the new kconfig option. I don't want others to use it as we want
> to get rid of this for X86 too eventually. Making it a kconfig option
> allows anyone to enable it and then depend on it without us knowing..
>
> Rather just write it as "if (x86)", with a comment on what we plan to
> do with it in few release cycles.
Right, those changes are based on discussion in [1].
---
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAJZ5v0gCRKzaFrwkoBpLHQUxoP_+jAyhMiCkLQaBUpduk9yxtA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
---
BR
Beata
>
> --
> viresh
