[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKohpokni=zPob9yz2-ak_g_xhwFaLBhk6wNGV5EGSfxx-eGZA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 10:58:40 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@...sung.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
Eduardo Valentin <eduardo.valentin@...com>,
"cpufreq@...r.kernel.org" <cpufreq@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Jonghwa Lee <jonghwa3.lee@...sung.com>, l.majewski@...ess.pl,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@...aro.org>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@...sung.com>,
Myungjoo Ham <myungjoo.ham@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/7] cpufreq: Add boost frequency support in core
On 16 July 2013 17:36, Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@...sung.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 15:11:54 +0530 Viresh Kumar viresh.kumar@...aro.org
> wrote,
>> On 4 July 2013 14:20, Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@...sung.com> wrote:
>> > +void cpufreq_set_boost_enabled(int state)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ [*]
>
>>
>> Maybe cpufreq_block_boost? As suggested by Rafael.
>
> What do you mean by cpufreq_block_boost()? This name would reverse the
> logic.
>
> Function [*] is used to change boost_enabled static flag (defined at
> cpufreq.c file) state according to acpi-cpufreq.c boost support status.
I misread it again :(
So, what about adding another field in struct cpufreq_driver: boost_enabled?
And get rid of the global boost_enabled we have used? Similar to how
boost_supported is used, then we don't need this routine.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists