[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <547EA45F.6060600@huawei.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2014 13:49:19 +0800
From: Wang Weidong <wangweidong1@...wei.com>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
CC: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<guohanjun@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] fix some problems for cpufreq
On 2014/12/2 12:38, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 30 November 2014 at 13:53, Wang Weidong <wangweidong1@...wei.com> wrote:
>> No, there are not utilities and scripts relying on it.
>
> How can you be so sure about it ? There might be scripts/utils you
> aren't aware of
> and are depending on this..
>
>> I just confuse that:
>> If the policy->min and policy-max is changed while it shows all available freqs
>> though scaling_available_frequencies. I can't set all freq-steps, only [policy->min, policy->max].
>> why should it show all the available freqs.
>
> That's not the only purpose of those frequencies there. It shows list
> of all possible
> frequencies. Now, there can be issues if those lists are updated.
>
> Suppose somebody just played with the min/max frequency, now how would anybody
> come to know about the frequencies available above/below the
> user-max/min frequency?
>
> So as you mentioned in your example above: User space would never know about
>
> 1.05 Ghz and 2.3GHz anymore.. Unless you remember it or save it somewhere.
>
Nice, Thanks for your reply.
Got it.
Wang,
Regards
>> Although, it doesn't impact on us. So just ignore the patch#2. :)
>
> Probably yes.
>
>
--
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