On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 13:29:26 +0530 Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org
wrote,
> On 17 July 2013 13:06, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
> > At v4 there was the old acpi-cpufreq.c behaviour preserved (with
> > always exporting boost - when not supported ro, when supported rw).
> >
> > Due to Rafael and
On 17 July 2013 13:06, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
> At v4 there was the old acpi-cpufreq.c behaviour preserved (with always
> exporting boost - when not supported ro, when supported rw).
>
> Due to Rafael and Dirk comments it has been rewritten at v5:
>
>
On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 10:52:18 +0530 Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org
wrote,
> On 16 July 2013 17:03, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
> > As fair as I've understood our previous discussion (at [*]) we have
> > agreed about this. We only export boost attribute when it is
> > supported by cpufreq_driver.
On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 10:52:18 +0530 Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org
wrote,
On 16 July 2013 17:03, Lukasz Majewski l.majew...@samsung.com wrote:
As fair as I've understood our previous discussion (at [*]) we have
agreed about this. We only export boost attribute when it is
supported by
On 17 July 2013 13:06, Lukasz Majewski l.majew...@samsung.com wrote:
At v4 there was the old acpi-cpufreq.c behaviour preserved (with always
exporting boost - when not supported ro, when supported rw).
Due to Rafael and Dirk comments it has been rewritten at v5:
On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 13:29:26 +0530 Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org
wrote,
On 17 July 2013 13:06, Lukasz Majewski l.majew...@samsung.com wrote:
At v4 there was the old acpi-cpufreq.c behaviour preserved (with
always exporting boost - when not supported ro, when supported rw).
Due to
On 16 July 2013 17:03, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
> As fair as I've understood our previous discussion (at [*]) we have
> agreed about this. We only export boost attribute when it is supported
> by cpufreq_driver. Rafael was very clear about exporting boost
> attribute:
>
> "Simple: Export it only
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 15:31:43 +0530 Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org
wrote,
> On 4 July 2013 14:20, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
> > -Reading the file is always supported, even if the processor does
> > not -support boosting. In this case the file will be read-only and
> > always -reads as "0".
On 4 July 2013 14:20, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
> -Reading the file is always supported, even if the processor does not
> -support boosting. In this case the file will be read-only and always
> -reads as "0". Explicitly changing the permissions and writing to that
> -file anyway will return EINVAL.
On 4 July 2013 14:20, Lukasz Majewski l.majew...@samsung.com wrote:
-Reading the file is always supported, even if the processor does not
-support boosting. In this case the file will be read-only and always
-reads as 0. Explicitly changing the permissions and writing to that
-file anyway will
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 15:31:43 +0530 Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org
wrote,
On 4 July 2013 14:20, Lukasz Majewski l.majew...@samsung.com wrote:
-Reading the file is always supported, even if the processor does
not -support boosting. In this case the file will be read-only and
always
On 16 July 2013 17:03, Lukasz Majewski l.majew...@samsung.com wrote:
As fair as I've understood our previous discussion (at [*]) we have
agreed about this. We only export boost attribute when it is supported
by cpufreq_driver. Rafael was very clear about exporting boost
attribute:
Simple:
Since the support for software and hardware controlled boosting has been
added, the corresponding Documentation entry had been updated.
Signed-off-by: Lukasz Majewski
Signed-off-by: Myungjoo Ham
---
Changes for v5:
- New patch
Documentation/cpu-freq/boost.txt | 26
Since the support for software and hardware controlled boosting has been
added, the corresponding Documentation entry had been updated.
Signed-off-by: Lukasz Majewski l.majew...@samsung.com
Signed-off-by: Myungjoo Ham myungjoo@samsung.com
---
Changes for v5:
- New patch
14 matches
Mail list logo
