Re: [RFC v2 0/3][TESTS] LAB: Support for Legacy Application Boostergovernor - tests results

[Viresh Kumar]

On 28 May 2013 12:10, Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 27 May 2013 17:30, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: <manually added by viresh>
>> On Monday, May 27, 2013 06:54:49 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> > On 27 May 2013 17:30, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I was talking about /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/boost that
>> appears to have been added by commit 615b730 (acpi-cpufreq: Add
>> support for disabling dynamic overclocking).
>>
>> That's in acpi-cpufreq, but since that setting seems to be generally
>> useful, it may be a good idea to move it to the core somehow.

Problem is in breaking existing cpufreq userspace for this driver.
Is this allowed?

> I think that Viresh wanted to add "boost" option to
> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpuX/cpufreq/ to be able to control boost
> at separate cores (policies).
>
> The localization, which you have proposed:
> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/boost
>
> implies, that boost is a global feature (enabled for all cores and for
> all available policies).
>
> Which approach shall be used then?

We can use: get_governor_parent_kobj() to get the best location
for boost. But I had some other issues in mind:
- boost is governor dependent.. i.e. It is only required for ondemand
governor (And LAB if it makes it to mainline :) ).. Other governors
doesn't need it. So, it would be better to add it in governor's directory.
- This will break existing users of acpi-cpufreq driver.

@Rafael: Please suggest what to do here.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/