From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Viresh Kumar Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/7] cpufreq: Add boost frequency support in core Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 18:31:19 +0530 Message-ID: References: <1370502472-7249-1-git-send-email-l.majewski@samsung.com> <6633375.dICiDrHJgK@vostro.rjw.lan> <2509113.ybUsa2l9tg@vostro.rjw.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Return-path: In-Reply-To: <2509113.ybUsa2l9tg@vostro.rjw.lan> Sender: cpufreq-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Lukasz Majewski , Dirk Brandewie , Lukasz Majewski , "cpufreq@vger.kernel.org" , Linux PM list , Vincent Guittot , Jonghwa Lee , Myungjoo Ham , linux-kernel , Andre Przywara , Daniel Lezcano , Kukjin Kim , Zhang Rui , Eduardo Valentin List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On 17 July 2013 17:01, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > First off, I'm not sure how many applications actually use it and I think, > if any, they should be able cope with the attribute not being present. > > Of course, if it turns out that yes, there are applications using it and no, > they cannot cope with the missing attribute, we'll need to address this. > That said such applications wouldn't work with earlier kernels in which that > attribute wasn't present at all, so I suppose this is really unlikely. > > So, do whichever makes more sense to you: Design things to preserve the old > behavior (which is sightly confusing) or design them to expose the attribute > if the feature is actually supported and be prepared to address the (unlikely) > case when some hypothetical applications break because of that. Okay. Its better to keep it the way Lukasz designed it in his last patchset.