From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Viresh Kumar Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Add scaling frequency range support Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 09:59:45 +0530 Message-ID: <20150728042945.GE1229@linux> References: <55B6F7C3.8040405@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <55B6F7C3.8040405@intel.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Pan Xinhui Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , "rjw@rjwysocki.net" , "mnipxh@163.com" , "yanmin_zhang@linux.intel.com" List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On 28-07-15, 11:32, Pan Xinhui wrote: > From: Pan Xinhui > > Userspace at most time do cpufreq tests very much inconveniently. > Currently they have to echo min and max cpu freq separately like below: > echo 480000 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_min_freq > echo 2240000 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_max_freq > > Add scaling_freq_range cpufreq attr to support userspace's demand. > Therefore it's easier for testers to write readable scripts like below: > echo 480000-2240000 > > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_freq_range I don't think this brings any good change, we already have support for that with min/max freqs and I don't see how scripts can be less readable with that. So, why to add redundant files at all? Also note that we can't remove the old interface as that will break the ABI. -- viresh