From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: viresh.kumar@linaro.org (Viresh Kumar) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 20:46:10 +0530 Subject: [PATCH] cpufreq: exynos: Broadcast frequency change notifications for all cores In-Reply-To: <1520678.Zm627xxIN3@amdc1227> References: <1887364.fvxYYNb7Mm@amdc1227> <1520677.WES295RohH@amdc1227> <1520678.Zm627xxIN3@amdc1227> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 31 January 2013 20:34, Tomasz Figa wrote: > Well, the fact that it isn't used at the moment doesn't mean that it > shouldn't be set correctly. The field is present in the structure and has > a set of defined values - one of which should be selected. For example, > I can imagine some governor taking this information into account. Governors already take this information but from a different variable: policy->cpus. Look at the patch which added it: commit 3b2d99429e3386b6e2ac949fc72486509c8bbe36 Author: Venkatesh Pallipadi Date: Wed Dec 14 15:05:00 2005 -0500 P-state software coordination for ACPI core http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5737 Signed-off-by: Venkatesh Pallipadi Signed-off-by: Len Brown --- drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c | 228 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ include/acpi/processor.h | 27 ++++++++++++- include/linux/cpufreq.h | 4 ++ 3 files changed, 258 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) It was clearly for ACPI, but was probably named badly and we people got confused that it is for our use. -- viresh