From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@samsung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] cpufreq: Add boost frequency support in core
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 08:41:08 +0200
Message-ID: <20130620084108.39b188aa@amdc308.digital.local>
References: <1370502472-7249-1-git-send-email-l.majewski@samsung.com>
 <20130617155156.4c729b5a@amdc308.digital.local>
 <CAKohpo=_=u35wTb-ZUXrR2hNno+ryAqq4gSC3EiJr=-bmgb9JQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <3258927.Qds4G9CTyG@vostro.rjw.lan>
 <20130618154456.56d99e18@amdc308.digital.local>
 <20130619091612.60e4d69d@amdc308.digital.local>
 <CAKohponTEb_XQnGTpDVC78jknCuwumnckCKZk6cObq45RmWpFA@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-reply-to: <CAKohponTEb_XQnGTpDVC78jknCuwumnckCKZk6cObq45RmWpFA@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <cpufreq.vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>, "cpufreq@vger.kernel.org" <cpufreq@vger.kernel.org>, Linux PM list <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>, Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>, Jonghwa Lee <jonghwa3.lee@samsung.com>, Myungjoo Ham <myungjoo.ham@samsung.com>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@majess.pl>, Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@linaro.org>, Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>, Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>, Amit Daniel Kachhap <amit.daniel@samsung.com>

On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 10:41:41 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 19 June 2013 12:46, Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@samsung.com> wrote:
> > I would like to clarify the above issue.
> >
> > When I've discussed with Viresh previous version of this patch, we
> > have agreed, that "boost" sysfs attribute [*]:
> > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/boost
> >
> > would be only visible when boost_supported flag is set at cpufreq
> > driver.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > When acpi-cpufreq driver doesn't support boost, the attribute [*]
> > won't be exported at all. This contradicts the documentation and
> > legacy acpi-cpufreq behaviour.
> 
> No they aren't contradictory. What the documentation meant was:
> acpi-cpufreq driver is used by lots of different x86 processors. Now
> all processors might not support boost inside x86 also. And for them
> we will keep 'boost' file readonly. This is done by following
> statement

Thanks for explanation.

> 
> 	if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_CPB) ||
> boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_IDA)) { boost_supported = true;
>                 ....
> 	} else
> 		global_boost.attr.mode = 0444;

Grrr.... So simple and obvious solution [1]. 

> 
> Documentation file doesn't talk about any other cpufreq driver, for
> them there is no concept like boost.
> 
> You need to preserve this functionality.

Yes the idea [1], solves problem with legacy API.

> 
> > Since I'm affraid to break API (with all its consequences :-) ), I
> > would like to be sure that this is OK, and thereof I'm allowed to
> > rewrite documentation accordingly.
> >
> > I simply need explicit permission from both maintainers :-).
> 
> For me its okay to rewrite documentation.

I will extent documentation about the SW managed boost.

-- 
Best regards,

Lukasz Majewski

Samsung R&D Institute Poland (SRPOL) | Linux Platform Group