On Monday, August 03, 2015 04:10:44 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 03-08-15, 12:36, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > > I would really like it to be dependency not an option (+ I think > > that ideally it should be checked at runtime, IOW we should be > > checking from cpufreq-dt driver if the thermal support is enabled > > before enabling boost support). > > I don't think boost has any dependency on thermal support. Yeah, it > may be true for your platform but we can't force it. People might have > different algorithms to control boost modes, thermal is just one > option they may look at. For few, enabling boost may not be a thermal > issue, but power. So, they want to allow it only when they want, but > that wouldn't burn their chip. OK, I see your point (I have not thought about power being the boost limitation previously). > So, a platform can choose how it wants to have it. :) I'll re-do this patch. Thank you. Best regards, -- Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz Samsung R&D Institute Poland Samsung Electronics -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
 |