On 21-01-25, 16:17, Beata Michalska wrote:
> 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].
Ahh I see.. What about making it depend on X86 for now, as we really
don't want new users to use it ?
--
viresh
