[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161107043348.GA21030@vireshk-i7>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 10:03:48 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Markus Mayer <code@...yer.net>
Cc: "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Power Management List <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Broadcom Kernel List <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Markus Mayer <mmayer@...adcom.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] cpufreq: add new attribute type
cpufreq_freq_attr_wr_perm()
On 04-11-16, 09:55, Markus Mayer wrote:
> From: Markus Mayer <mmayer@...adcom.com>
>
> With the new attribute type, it is possible to create write-only
> CPUfreq attributes.
>
> Signed-off-by: Markus Mayer <mmayer@...adcom.com>
> ---
> include/linux/cpufreq.h | 4 ++++
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/cpufreq.h b/include/linux/cpufreq.h
> index 5fa55fc..ed09930 100644
> --- a/include/linux/cpufreq.h
> +++ b/include/linux/cpufreq.h
> @@ -234,6 +234,10 @@ __ATTR(_name, _perm, show_##_name, NULL)
> static struct freq_attr _name = \
> __ATTR(_name, 0644, show_##_name, store_##_name)
>
> +#define cpufreq_freq_attr_wr_perm(_name, _perm) \
shouldn't this be _wo_perm ?
Also, I wouldn't mind doing this in the second patch itself.
> +static struct freq_attr _name = \
> +__ATTR(_name, _perm, NULL, store_##_name)
> +
> struct global_attr {
> struct attribute attr;
> ssize_t (*show)(struct kobject *kobj,
> --
> 2.7.4
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists